Penelope Burton wrote: >>There is a good deal of free data on the 'net, but much has been monetarised behind paywalls. GOONS does need to consider this aspect as the subs are quite small and if we end up as a repository of valuable data, then perhaps we should be extracting a bit of dosh for Tom, Dick and Harry to get access?<< The problem here is that we are a charity and those behind paywalls are commercial companies.... Polly

Anne Shankland said: > 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! I echo Tessa's words of appreciation to Anne for her thinking on this matter. In the case of Marriage Challenges, I have often seen cases where some of my requests to the Challenger (seeking supplementary information re parents and witnesses) have already been contributed, perhaps years previously, to the GMI fields (bride, groom, date and place). In that case, I would initially be the member providing the information AND the registered member, but when the Marriage Challenge results are loaded into the GMI, would I cease to be the member providing the information, even though I had already populated the GMI fields with the same information found by the Marriage Challenge? Dick Chandler in Salmon Arm, British Columbia, Canada

Tessa, I agree that we need to be careful with language. I might have used the term "owner" in the past but it really is inappropriate, for the reasons which you gave. I think the "problem" of the "stealing" of data is moot. I do not have a tree on Ancestry because I was (>10 years ago) fed up with every man and his dog copying it into bonkers trees with no sourced connection to any of my ancestors. This is a problem with BURTON, and a cohort of USA BURTON researchers who are sure we are all descended from some Norman Knight. We Aren't. I have now come to the conclusion that the internet is so full of rubbish of a genealogical and other nature, that I really should put all my data (including QUESTED) in the public domain as at least it will be as correct as I can make it. But this has to wait until I can get the data as correct as I can.... But there is another point, I think. There is a good deal of free data on the 'net, but much has been monetarised behind paywalls. GOONS does need to consider this aspect as the subs are quite small and if we end up as a repository of valuable data, then perhaps we should be extracting a bit of dosh for Tom, Dick and Harry to get access? Penelope Burton GOONS 4896

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

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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Debbie Kennett via" <goons@rootsweb.com> To: <goons@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 3:16 PM Subject: Re: [G] profile page references to Index records >I think it's important to respect the wishes of individual members. If >there > really are people who are concerned that people might "steal" their data > from the GMI then their preferences for restricted searches should be > retained. However, it's equally important that members who wish to make > their data fully accessible should be allowed to do so. > > I would have thought that it should be possible to accommodate individual > preferences within the database format so that the wishes of all members > are > met. In the long run, perhaps when the GMI is moved over to the CMS, I > would > imagine it should be possible to have a system whereby we can upload and > edit our own data, and also download marriages in a spreadsheet for our > personal use. > > There probably ought to be terms and conditions for the submission of > marriages to the GMI so that members can indicate their preferences at the > outset. > > Debbie Kennett > Member no. 4554 > Cruwys/Cruse/Cruise one-name study > >>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 > > Jim Isard > 1803 > > _____________________________________________ > > 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 >

Tessa, dosh is short for Escudos, Portugal's old currency and thus has become slang for money. For Tom, Dock and Harry, read "Joe Sixpack" Oh and "subs" are short for subscriptions, i.e., "dues." To join in the debate with Dick C, I agree that the Guild's own data is something we should largely keep behind a paywall, albeit that derivatives of it can be used for profiles, finding marriage locations and so on. There has to be something worth paying dues for. But for personal study data, we I think find ourselves totally at odds with one another, which is great, because there is no one answer right for everyone. Variety is the spice of life, or as we say over here "Diffrent strokes". Merry Christmas/Hannukah/etc Paul On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Polly Rubery via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Penelope Burton wrote: > >>>There is a good deal of free data > on the 'net, but much has been monetarised behind paywalls. GOONS does > need to consider this aspect as the subs are quite small and if we end > up as a repository of valuable data, then perhaps we should be > extracting a bit of dosh for Tom, Dick and Harry to get access?<< > > The problem here is that we are a charity and those behind paywalls are > commercial companies.... > Polly > > > _____________________________________________ > > 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 -- Paul Howes www.howesfamilies.com Researching House, Howes, Hows, Howse & Howze worldwide

I agree Debbie, we should be given a choice. I personally have no problem with people viewing my data and would be happy for it to be fully searchable.Penny JonesHalkyard ONSMember 5584 On Thursday, 18 December 2014, 15:17, Debbie Kennett via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: I think it's important to respect the wishes of individual members. If there really are people who are concerned that people might "steal" their data from the GMI then their preferences for restricted searches should be retained. However, it's equally important that members who wish to make their data fully accessible should be allowed to do so. I would have thought that it should be possible to accommodate individual preferences within the database format so that the wishes of all members are met. In the long run, perhaps when the GMI is moved over to the CMS, I would imagine it should be possible to have a system whereby we can upload and edit our own data, and also download marriages in a spreadsheet for our personal use. There probably ought to be terms and conditions for the submission of marriages to the GMI so that members can indicate their preferences at the outset. Debbie Kennett Member no. 4554 Cruwys/Cruse/Cruise one-name study >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 Jim Isard 1803 _____________________________________________ 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 it's important to respect the wishes of individual members. If there really are people who are concerned that people might "steal" their data from the GMI then their preferences for restricted searches should be retained. However, it's equally important that members who wish to make their data fully accessible should be allowed to do so. I would have thought that it should be possible to accommodate individual preferences within the database format so that the wishes of all members are met. In the long run, perhaps when the GMI is moved over to the CMS, I would imagine it should be possible to have a system whereby we can upload and edit our own data, and also download marriages in a spreadsheet for our personal use. There probably ought to be terms and conditions for the submission of marriages to the GMI so that members can indicate their preferences at the outset. Debbie Kennett Member no. 4554 Cruwys/Cruse/Cruise one-name study >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 Jim Isard 1803

Don't get so many fields that people take one look and leave. THe GMI is special in that a lot of the data seems to have come from marriage challenges ( I know most of my results are CPs) and so there really is no contact person and the people that are studying the name may not have more info about the person than the challenge found. There are a lot of points to consider. 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: Anne Shankland via <goons@rootsweb.com> To: Tessa Keough <tessa.keough@one-name.org>; goons@rootsweb.com Cc: Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 5:28 PM Subject: Re: [G] profile page references to Index records 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

> In the interim, scattering juicy lures everywhere one can is perhaps a wiser choice. And of course we should remember that, once published on the internet, material can never be unpublished. Dick Chandler in Salmon Arm, British Columbia, Canada< My study is my juicy lure - I have a website that is as open as I can make it on the site hosting it and still be included in their onsite search. I invite people to contact me with corrections and additions. It seems to work quite well for me and I have gotten some very valuable help over the years. ANd we have resolved some very major issues to the satisfaction of all concerned though some of us were surprised how things turned out. A lot of legends have had holes shot in them. And we are still collecting data. BUt I know when I land on a website that requires registration before I can see anything - I usually leave. I don't think I am atypical. I like the fact that the new website search is giving teasers of the kind of thing GUild members do by having numerical results of the index searches and a direct jump to the profile page if it exists. I would like it even more if at least one index was not behind the pay wall - I of course suggest my 'baby' the WWM but the truth is - it was designed for just such a duty - it does not give complete data on a marriage - it only requires the two names, year and country - just enough to wet the interest ----and if you want more there is a member number for contact. And I see no reason that members without studies could not contribute - as lang as they are prepared to respond to questions about the entered marriage. They have a member number. 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 ________________________________ From: DickChandler via <goons@rootsweb.com> To: goons@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 3:41 PM Subject: Re: [G] profile page references to Index records The references to "GMI contributors concerned about someone stealing all their work" may sound as if the Guild is being held hostage by a few possessive or neurotic members. Anyone who questions the current policy and believes in full access might like to consider the following questions: 1. Which other member has a legitimate interest in accessing ALL the information you have synthesised from data about "your" name? 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? Looking outside the Guild, "stealing the work" is shorthand for a package of concerns about making information available on the internet before a study is complete. It is impossible to conduct a comprehensive surname study without contact with living relatives. Only they can know the more recent life events in their extended family, and they are usually glad to provide that detail in exchange for help with their earlier lineage. Anything which discourages such contact seriously damages the study, and that is what online availability threatens. In today's online world, it is possible for people to collect huge amounts of data without lifting a single book from a shelf and searching it, and without contacting the person whose analysis transformed the data into information. This drive-by data-gathering discourages the contact we need. Further, online databases encourage people to go fishing for their ancestors. A person may or may not have done good research leading them to be looking for a particular ancestor. The person they find in an online database may or may not be the searcher's correct ancestor, but too often they will seize that name and add it to their tree, and later on they will publish that tree online, adding another mythical tree in cyberspace. It is folly for us to contribute to these bad habits. We need a RELATIONSHIP with anyone doing family history research on "our" name. We want to examine the research they have done so far, partly to assess their thoroughness, and partly because we can learn from their material, especially about more recent life events. And we want to gently correct any errors we see and offer suggestions, free of charge, of what their correct ancestry may be, with suitable qualifications or warnings. We may try to recruit the enquirer to our DNA project. We may even get an ongoing collaborator. This way, everyone wins, and the integrity of the data we have collected and synthesised is protected. I do understand the feel-good factor people may experience by publishing their work-in-progress (hopefully having due regard to privacy issues) but it is wise to consider all the possible consequences. Of course, those who publish will say that they still get contacts, but how does one know how many other people did not make contact because they thought they had found what they wanted, or didn't find it and went elsewhere? When the study's data gathering and synthesis is complete and there is no need for new contact, that is the time to consider publication. In the interim, scattering juicy lures everywhere one can is perhaps a wiser choice. And of course we should remember that, once published on the internet, material can never be unpublished. Dick Chandler in Salmon Arm, British Columbia, Canada _____________________________________________ 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

The problem is that stealing will happen no matter what - always has happened, always will happen. I think some just want the answers and don't want to do the work. I don't have a tree on Ancestry (I know I should but, ...) and the few times I have tried to correct someone who has a connection terribly wrong (and I have his family information and offered it to him) people are not all that interested in fixing errors. So agree that there is lots of rubbish out there and we have to go through it and find the gems (like a treasure hunt). I think most GOONs like the process as well as the results. I do like the fact that we can contribute to the Guild's indexes and databases and I will be taking advantage of that in 2015 (on my resolutions list). It took me a few years of membership to learn enough to feel comfortable with registering a surname, and it took me until last month to get my profile up on the website (thanks for the improvements which made it easy for me). But throughout my the past four years I have enjoyed the Journal, the Wiki, the recorded seminars, the presentations at the website, and the hangouts. It appears that I still need a British/American dictionary though - "subs" and "dosh" and who are "Tom, Dick and Harry?" Thanks Tessa Tessa Keough Guild of One-Name Studies, Member No. 5089 Keough (Keogh, Kough & Kehoe) Registered ONS USA West Regional Representative On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Penelope Burton <penelopeburton@gmail.com> wrote: > Tessa, I agree that we need to be careful with language. I might have > used the term "owner" in the past but it really is inappropriate, for > the reasons which you gave. > > I think the "problem" of the "stealing" of data is moot. I do not have > a tree on Ancestry because I was (>10 years ago) fed up with every man > and his dog copying it into bonkers trees with no sourced connection > to any of my ancestors. This is a problem with BURTON, and a cohort of > USA BURTON researchers who are sure we are all descended from some > Norman Knight. We Aren't. > > I have now come to the conclusion that the internet is so full of > rubbish of a genealogical and other nature, that I really should put > all my data (including QUESTED) in the public domain as at least it > will be as correct as I can make it. But this has to wait until I can > get the data as correct as I can.... > > But there is another point, I think. There is a good deal of free data > on the 'net, but much has been monetarised behind paywalls. GOONS does > need to consider this aspect as the subs are quite small and if we end > up as a repository of valuable data, then perhaps we should be > extracting a bit of dosh for Tom, Dick and Harry to get access? > > Penelope Burton > GOONS 4896

The references to "GMI contributors concerned about someone stealing all their work" may sound as if the Guild is being held hostage by a few possessive or neurotic members. Anyone who questions the current policy and believes in full access might like to consider the following questions: 1. Which other member has a legitimate interest in accessing ALL the information you have synthesised from data about "your" name? 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? Looking outside the Guild, "stealing the work" is shorthand for a package of concerns about making information available on the internet before a study is complete. It is impossible to conduct a comprehensive surname study without contact with living relatives. Only they can know the more recent life events in their extended family, and they are usually glad to provide that detail in exchange for help with their earlier lineage. Anything which discourages such contact seriously damages the study, and that is what online availability threatens. In today's online world, it is possible for people to collect huge amounts of data without lifting a single book from a shelf and searching it, and without contacting the person whose analysis transformed the data into information. This drive-by data-gathering discourages the contact we need. Further, online databases encourage people to go fishing for their ancestors. A person may or may not have done good research leading them to be looking for a particular ancestor. The person they find in an online database may or may not be the searcher's correct ancestor, but too often they will seize that name and add it to their tree, and later on they will publish that tree online, adding another mythical tree in cyberspace. It is folly for us to contribute to these bad habits. We need a RELATIONSHIP with anyone doing family history research on "our" name. We want to examine the research they have done so far, partly to assess their thoroughness, and partly because we can learn from their material, especially about more recent life events. And we want to gently correct any errors we see and offer suggestions, free of charge, of what their correct ancestry may be, with suitable qualifications or warnings. We may try to recruit the enquirer to our DNA project. We may even get an ongoing collaborator. This way, everyone wins, and the integrity of the data we have collected and synthesised is protected. I do understand the feel-good factor people may experience by publishing their work-in-progress (hopefully having due regard to privacy issues) but it is wise to consider all the possible consequences. Of course, those who publish will say that they still get contacts, but how does one know how many other people did not make contact because they thought they had found what they wanted, or didn't find it and went elsewhere? When the study's data gathering and synthesis is complete and there is no need for new contact, that is the time to consider publication. In the interim, scattering juicy lures everywhere one can is perhaps a wiser choice. And of course we should remember that, once published on the internet, material can never be unpublished. Dick Chandler in Salmon Arm, British Columbia, Canada

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 Jim Isard 1803 -----Original Message----- From: goons-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:goons-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Peter Alefounder via Sent: 17 December 2014 12:20 To: goons@rootsweb.com Subject: [G] profile page references to Index records Corinne Curtis <corinneinorkney@gmail.com> said: > I'd also like to be able to submit material to indexes on other > surnames that may not be registered, and I'm not sure if this is > allowed? In the case of the Guild Marriage Index, it is allowed. If the surnames are not registered, the entries appear both ways round and so are fully searchable. > I also wonder whether the search facility that fails to show up > references submitted in your study name is now outmoded? Not being able to search the first surname (the registered one) is to stop someone else "stealing" all your work, which was a major worry for some when the GMI was first proposed. I don't think that principle is likely to change: indeed, it's been adopted for the Worldwide index. Peter Alefounder. _____________________________________________ 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

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

I think the only reliable method to prevent stealing is not to put your work on the internet to start with. Having said that - I do think it would be nice is a contributor to any of the indexes could see a summary of their contribution. I've contributed several thousand records to different indexes and I hate to admit it but I can't remember some of the early contributions. Being able to look at my own contributions would help avoid duplications. It would be nice if there were a mechanism that allowed me to do it automatically without needing an indexes manager to intervene. 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 ________________________________ From: Jimmy Isard via <goons@rootsweb.com> To: 'Peter Alefounder' <p_alefounder@yahoo.co.uk>; goons@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 7:19 AM Subject: Re: [G] profile page references to Index records 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 Jim Isard 1803 -----Original Message----- From: goons-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:goons-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Peter Alefounder via Sent: 17 December 2014 12:20 To: goons@rootsweb.com Subject: [G] profile page references to Index records Corinne Curtis <corinneinorkney@gmail.com> said: > I'd also like to be able to submit material to indexes on other > surnames that may not be registered, and I'm not sure if this is > allowed? In the case of the Guild Marriage Index, it is allowed. If the surnames are not registered, the entries appear both ways round and so are fully searchable. > I also wonder whether the search facility that fails to show up > references submitted in your study name is now outmoded? Not being able to search the first surname (the registered one) is to stop someone else "stealing" all your work, which was a major worry for some when the GMI was first proposed. I don't think that principle is likely to change: indeed, it's been adopted for the Worldwide index. Peter Alefounder. _____________________________________________ 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 _____________________________________________ 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

Yes, not that unusual in my experience. I've seen brothers and also uncles. I don't believe there's anything particularly significant about it. Human error, misunderstanding etc. Nigel Osborne (mobile) > On 17/12/2014, at 12:49 pm, John P Laws via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Hi One-namers > > When Charles Henry LAWS married Jane Herbert BOND at St.James Lambeth SRY on > 17 Dec 1883 his elder brothers name James Walter LAWS appears where the > father's name should be, the father James Snoad Laws having died three years > before. Not come across this before, has anyone else? > > John P Laws > > Registrar > Laws Family Register > Putting Flesh on the Bones of History > > http://lawsfamilyregister.tribalpages.com > http://lawsandlawes.blogspot.com > > > > _____________________________________________ > > 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

No problems Mike, hope you find the software useful. Rennison Rennison's List on http://www.upperdalesfhg.org.uk/rennisons.htm The Vayro Ancestry on http://www.vayro.name Vayro Database on http://vayro.tribalpages.com Vayro Guild of One-Name Studies Profile http://one-name.org/name_profile/vayro/ http://www.rennisonprimarydesigntechnology.info Searching for VAYRO, VARO, VARAH and variations worldwide

Thanks for the link. I've subscribed to Dick's newsletter too. ---- Regards Mike On 17 Dec 2014 12:42, "RENNISON john.vayro@sky.com via" <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Hi to members > > Dick Eastman has an item about a new FREE piece of software called > Genscriber that helps with transcribing old documents. > > > http://blog.eogn.com/2014/12/16/genscriber-a-free-transcription-tool-for-genealogy-research/ > > The above link will take you to a page describing the software, and on > that page there are two links to follow. One to download the programme and > the other of videos showing its use. > > I haven't actually used it but thought it may be of interest to members. > > Rennison > Rennison's List on http://www.upperdalesfhg.org.uk/rennisons.htm > The Vayro Ancestry on http://www.vayro.name > Vayro Database on http://vayro.tribalpages.com > Vayro Guild of One-Name Studies Profile > http://one-name.org/name_profile/vayro/ > http://www.rennisonprimarydesigntechnology.info > Searching for VAYRO, VARO, VARAH and variations worldwide > _____________________________________________ > > 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 >

We also lost a local free paper recently the Hereford Journal. I don't know if it is part of the same group or not. Polly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Debbie Kennett via" <goons@rootsweb.com> To: <goons@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 6:01 PM Subject: Re: [G] Guild News Watch There are in fact seven local newspapers in England that are closing. The Reading Post, GetReading and the Wokingham and Bracknell Times are to close along with the Surrey Herald, Surrey Times, Woking Informer and Harrow Observer. http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/trinity-mirror-close-seven-regional-newspapers -loss-50-jobs They are all part of the Trinity Mirror Group. The focus will instead now be on providing online content. It's a sign of the times but is perhaps inevitable. Debbie

Several replies, and I can now read the handwriting on the indenture record,and as several people have pointed out the ancestry indexing of Thomas Sennett is clearly wrong and it is more like Thomas Seamer, so not one of mine after all. Corinne Curtis (Sennett ONS)