I believe marriage finder relies on a person supplying the information either because they have the certificate or by other means - perhaps FMP has a means of crosschecking on parish records. Actually, I don't rely much on the marriage index at all - I've just had too many mistakes. I downloaded a spreadsheet of the possible marriages and then went to Family Search and Ancestry and did a search on marriages for my study name in the right time period. BOth sites return church records as well as the index records. So I harvested all the church records and ticked off the appropriate lines in the spreadsheet. This left me with about 10% unknown. Next step was to use the censuses to find the new families and see what the spouses name was. At this point, Out of 3900 marriage I'm still missing about 50 spouses. But I'm in the middle of doing a recheck so it will probably diminish some more. Then I either get a film from Family Search or I call in favors. Thanks to Ancestry, Family Search and various parish register films, I have about 2000 digital images of marriages - trying for the rest. It's funny really as England is the only place that makes marriages so difficult - in every other country if the marriage is registered and I can find the registration - I usually get the spouse name as well. Canadian records are great as are French - right back into the 1700sboth sets of parents and sometimes grandparents - love those. 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 'Peplers and Peplows' pepler.one-name.net ________________________________ From: Robert Fowler <rlkfowlerons@gmail.com> To: Goons Forum <goons@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 12:54 PM Subject: [G] FMP Errors One more for the road, Alton Sep 1891 2c 319 FMP "marriage finder" definitively advises Ben L F m Mary Ann White FreeBMD & Ancestry have standard 4 man options. I still do not understand what Marriage Finder does, apart from jerking my chain! Is FMP strewn with such errors - I have only looked a A... RDs so far. Is there a shortcut to marriage sets that FMP does have, but the other don't ?? Robert _____________________________________________ Information and admin page: http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ ------------------------------- 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

Robert Check the two names given by FreeBMD in FMP and check the transcription against the image. One of them has probably been transcribed incorrectly (I have not checked). As for what Marriage Finder does, it lists all of the entries with the same data: date, RD, vol no, page no. The data capture must include gender, so it only presents you with women if you look up a man and vice versa. All of the datasets on the commercial data providers have errors. It’s inevitable, as they are trying to do the work as cheaply as possible to make it commercially viable. It is quite possible that FreeBMD is more accurate as the transcription is done by volunteers, but I would not take it for granted. June Willing > On 27 Apr 2017, at 18:41, Robert Fowler <rlkfowlerons@gmail.com> wrote: > > One more for the road, Alton Sep 1891 2c 319 > > FMP "marriage finder" definitively advises Ben L F m Mary Ann White > > FreeBMD & Ancestry have standard 4 man options. > > > I still do not understand what Marriage Finder does, apart from > jerking my chain! > > > Is FMP strewn with such errors - I have only looked a A... RDs so far. > > > Is there a shortcut to marriage sets that FMP does have, but the other > don't ?? > > Robert > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > 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

One more for the road, Alton Sep 1891 2c 319 FMP "marriage finder" definitively advises Ben L F m Mary Ann White FreeBMD & Ancestry have standard 4 man options. I still do not understand what Marriage Finder does, apart from jerking my chain! Is FMP strewn with such errors - I have only looked a A... RDs so far. Is there a shortcut to marriage sets that FMP does have, but the other don't ?? Robert

Hi Robert There is an error in the FMP entry for Emma Churcher, one of the two possible alternative brides for Thomas Fowler. You can check this by comparing the transcription with the image. The image is page 1066 but this has been transcribed as 1056. All of the indexes match the husbands and wives up by using the reference numbers, but these have to be correct for it to work. So, FreeBMD is correct, Thomas Fowler could have married either Minnie Francis or Emma Churcher. Looking for Robert in the census after 1888 ought to resolve which it is. June Willing > On 27 Apr 2017, at 16:21, Robert Fowler <rlkfowlerons@gmail.com> wrote: > > June > > Thomas Fowler Dec 1888 Alverstoke 2b 1066: > > Both Ancestry & FreeBMD have 2 female options available. > > But the "marriage finder" on FMP definitively advises he married one of > them. > > Should you accept this, and what does Marriage Finder do ??? > > Thanks > > Robert > > On 27 April 2017 at 15:25, June Willing <june.willing@one-name.org> wrote: > >> Hi Robert >> >> Could you give as some examples, so that we can see for ourselves, then >> perhaps we could help. >> >> June Willing >> Guild of One-Name Studies member no 2117 >> Willing/Willings One-Name Study >> http://one-name.org/name_profile/Willing/ >> Willing/Willings DNA Project >> https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/willing >> Dominicus One-Name Study >> http://one-name.org/name_profile/dominicus/ >> >> >>> On 27 Apr 2017, at 14:00, Robert Fowler <rlkfowlerons@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> I am now making progress, concentrating on missing marriages. >>> >>> As a FMP novice I am slightly confused; some marriages have all the >>> options - ie no information known >>> >>> Others have reduced the options to one stating per the Marriage Finder X >>> married Y BUT without any transcription/details. >>> >>> How should one understand this, why is there only one option? >>> >>> Robert Fowler >>> >>

June Thomas Fowler Dec 1888 Alverstoke 2b 1066: Both Ancestry & FreeBMD have 2 female options available. But the "marriage finder" on FMP definitively advises he married one of them. Should you accept this, and what does Marriage Finder do ??? Thanks Robert On 27 April 2017 at 15:25, June Willing <june.willing@one-name.org> wrote: > Hi Robert > > Could you give as some examples, so that we can see for ourselves, then > perhaps we could help. > > June Willing > Guild of One-Name Studies member no 2117 > Willing/Willings One-Name Study > http://one-name.org/name_profile/Willing/ > Willing/Willings DNA Project > https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/willing > Dominicus One-Name Study > http://one-name.org/name_profile/dominicus/ > > > > On 27 Apr 2017, at 14:00, Robert Fowler <rlkfowlerons@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > I am now making progress, concentrating on missing marriages. > > > > As a FMP novice I am slightly confused; some marriages have all the > > options - ie no information known > > > > Others have reduced the options to one stating per the Marriage Finder X > > married Y BUT without any transcription/details. > > > > How should one understand this, why is there only one option? > > > > Robert Fowler > > > > > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Hi Robert Could you give as some examples, so that we can see for ourselves, then perhaps we could help. June Willing Guild of One-Name Studies member no 2117 Willing/Willings One-Name Study http://one-name.org/name_profile/Willing/ Willing/Willings DNA Project https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/willing Dominicus One-Name Study http://one-name.org/name_profile/dominicus/ > On 27 Apr 2017, at 14:00, Robert Fowler <rlkfowlerons@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi > > I am now making progress, concentrating on missing marriages. > > As a FMP novice I am slightly confused; some marriages have all the > options - ie no information known > > Others have reduced the options to one stating per the Marriage Finder X > married Y BUT without any transcription/details. > > How should one understand this, why is there only one option? > > Robert Fowler >

Robert It helps here to know what dates the records relate to. If the GRO and post 1983 then the database was provided by the General Register Office Regards John Hanson, researcher, the Halsted Trust, http://www.halstedresearch.org.uk New family history conference in 2018 http://www.secretlives.org.uk -----Original Message----- From: GOONS [mailto:goons-bounces+john.hanson=one-name.org@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Robert Fowler Sent: 27 April 2017 14:00 To: Goons Forum Subject: Re: [G] FMP Free Access Hi I am now making progress, concentrating on missing marriages. As a FMP novice I am slightly confused; some marriages have all the options - ie no information known Others have reduced the options to one stating per the Marriage Finder X married Y BUT without any transcription/details. How should one understand this, why is there only one option? Robert Fowler On 27 April 2017 at 10:38, Tim Treeby <treeby@ttenterprises.co.uk> wrote: > FindMyPast have free access to their GLOBAL BMD and Census Records > this weekend. > See > https://blog.findmypast.co.uk/free-bmd-census-records-2370395973.html > for more info. > > Tim Treeby > (7112) > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > 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 > _____________________________________________ Information and admin page: http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ ------------------------------- 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

Hi I am now making progress, concentrating on missing marriages. As a FMP novice I am slightly confused; some marriages have all the options - ie no information known Others have reduced the options to one stating per the Marriage Finder X married Y BUT without any transcription/details. How should one understand this, why is there only one option? Robert Fowler On 27 April 2017 at 10:38, Tim Treeby <treeby@ttenterprises.co.uk> wrote: > FindMyPast have free access to their GLOBAL BMD and Census Records this > weekend. > See https://blog.findmypast.co.uk/free-bmd-census-records-2370395973.html > for more info. > > Tim Treeby > (7112) > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Just got a marriage off the Westminster collection. HTH Andy At 10:49 27/04/2017, you wrote: >Shame it does not apply to marriage records. > >Robert Fowler 5464 > >On 27 April 2017 at 10:38, Tim Treeby <treeby@ttenterprises.co.uk> wrote: >> FindMyPast have free access to their GLOBAL BMD and Census Records this >> weekend. >> See https://blog.findmypast.co.uk/free-bmd-census-records-2370395973.html >> for more info. >> >> Tim Treeby >> (7112) >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> _____________________________________________ >> >> Information and admin page: >> http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > _____________________________________________ > >Information and admin page: >http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ >------------------------------- >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

Shame it does not apply to marriage records. Robert Fowler 5464 On 27 April 2017 at 10:38, Tim Treeby <treeby@ttenterprises.co.uk> wrote: > FindMyPast have free access to their GLOBAL BMD and Census Records this > weekend. > See https://blog.findmypast.co.uk/free-bmd-census-records-2370395973.html > for more info. > > Tim Treeby > (7112) > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > 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

FindMyPast have free access to their GLOBAL BMD and Census Records this weekend. See https://blog.findmypast.co.uk/free-bmd-census-records-2370395973.html for more info. Tim Treeby (7112) --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Stuck your Beezley in as exact spelling on Family Search - 13000 results in 7000 datasets https://familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=20&query=%2Bsurname%3Abeezley 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 'Peplers and Peplows' pepler.one-name.net ________________________________ From: Doug Beezley <dbeezley@gmail.com> To: Goons Mailing List <goons@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 9:48 AM Subject: [G] Defining an ONS - Size of project The is a recent discussion of "Scope of an ONS - Spouses families". I believe it a good thing to compare notes on how we define what we do. There has been a discussion about estimating the size of the ONS. Unless I've missed something (and most likely I have), the most specific ideas have to do with using UK census figures which are, of course, a limited population. The tools I have used are: http://forebears.io/surnames/ http://worldnames.publicprofiler.org/ They each have their advantages. I find that, for statistical purposes, Forebears is more useful but I've used both for maps that can drill down into the statistics. I suspect most such tools are going to be more useful for English based names, but I have no way to know that, as mine is clearly of Old English derivation. I have found no other derivation that would lead to modern usage of the name with its principal variations (in order of prevalence) Beasley, Beesley, Beazley, and Beezley. Minor variations might include Beasly or Beesly. I do include a number of deviations if they are statistically significant because there are many that represent misspellings that are likely intended to be one of the major variations. It is necessary to approach this with a good idea of what are your variations and what are your deviations. In order to capture the best range, it is necessary to search for more than one variation. Then it is necessary to sort out results that fall below a level of statistical significance. At some point, you come up with a number that seems a solid estimate. Before I found the links above, I used the US 2000 census which listed incidence and ranking of all surnames registering at least 100 individuals. In that case, the four major variations accounted for 50,948. The only logical deviations (3) that made the cut only added another 750. Using Forebears, the US count for the four major variations is 59,441, adding 866 for another 6 deviations. The world count (filtering out countries and deviations to a level of significance at least 98% of the total world count) The Total World Count (all countries, all variations/deviations) is 85,305. The TWC of the four major variations is 82,392. The Total World Filtered Count is 84,122 and the TWFC for the four major variations is 81,314. Stepping back from all the reasons why precise numbers are useless, we can come up with a range that I would feel safe saying the incidence of my surname to be between 80,000 and 90,000 worldwide. While the capture of any particular surname in these tools is going to vary, the results need to be taken with a grain of salt. However, we might be able to broadly compare the size of our ONS projects and how the conduct and results of the project may vary at different size levels. Here are links to the charts where I took my numbers in the narrative above: Compare US 2000 census with Forebears: https://1drv.ms/i/s!AqrESx5rTBC7j-cB-UKi0CQUzfJwdQ Forebears results; variations and deviations by country: https://1drv.ms/i/s!AqrESx5rTBC7j-cAR6jIwozunuyEWA Doug Beezley _____________________________________________ Information and admin page: http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ ------------------------------- 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 had not. Thank you. d On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Marie Byatt <morris12m@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Have you looked at > http://one-name.org/wiki/guild-wiki/analyse/study-size/ > > > 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 > 'Peplers and Peplows' pepler.one-name.net > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Doug Beezley <dbeezley@gmail.com> > To: Goons Mailing List <goons@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 9:48 AM > Subject: [G] Defining an ONS - Size of project > > > > The is a recent discussion of "Scope of an ONS - Spouses families". I > > believe it a good thing to compare notes on how we define what we do. > > > There has been a discussion about estimating the size of the ONS. > > Unless I've missed something (and most likely I have), the most > > specific ideas have to do with using UK census figures which are, of > > course, a limited population. > > > The tools I have used are: > > > http://forebears.io/surnames/ > > http://worldnames.publicprofiler.org/ > > > They each have their advantages. I find that, for statistical > > purposes, Forebears is more useful but I've used both for maps that > > can drill down into the statistics. > > > I suspect most such tools are going to be more useful for English > > based names, but I have no way to know that, as mine is clearly of Old > > English derivation. I have found no other derivation that would lead > > to modern usage of the name with its principal variations (in order of > > prevalence) Beasley, Beesley, Beazley, and Beezley. Minor variations > > might include Beasly or Beesly. I do include a number of deviations if > > they are statistically significant because there are many that > > represent misspellings that are likely intended to be one of the major > > variations. > > > It is necessary to approach this with a good idea of what are your > > variations and what are your deviations. In order to capture the best > > range, it is necessary to search for more than one variation. Then it > > is necessary to sort out results that fall below a level of > > statistical significance. At some point, you come up with a number > > that seems a solid estimate. > > > Before I found the links above, I used the US 2000 census which listed > > incidence and ranking of all surnames registering at least 100 > > individuals. In that case, the four major variations accounted for > > 50,948. The only logical deviations (3) that made the cut only added > > another 750. > > > Using Forebears, the US count for the four major variations is 59,441, > > adding 866 for another 6 deviations. The world count (filtering out > > countries and deviations to a level of significance at least 98% of > > the total world count) > > > The Total World Count (all countries, all variations/deviations) is > > 85,305. The TWC of the four major variations is 82,392. > > > The Total World Filtered Count is 84,122 and the TWFC for the four > > major variations is 81,314. > > > Stepping back from all the reasons why precise numbers are useless, we > > can come up with a range that I would feel safe saying the incidence > > of my surname to be between 80,000 and 90,000 worldwide. While the > > capture of any particular surname in these tools is going to vary, the > > results need to be taken with a grain of salt. However, we might be > > able to broadly compare the size of our ONS projects and how the > > conduct and results of the project may vary at different size levels. > > > Here are links to the charts where I took my numbers in the narrative above: > > > Compare US 2000 census with Forebears: > > https://1drv.ms/i/s!AqrESx5rTBC7j-cB-UKi0CQUzfJwdQ > > > Forebears results; variations and deviations by country: > > https://1drv.ms/i/s!AqrESx5rTBC7j-cAR6jIwozunuyEWA > > > Doug Beezley > > _____________________________________________ > > > Information and admin page: > > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > 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

Have you looked at http://one-name.org/wiki/guild-wiki/analyse/study-size/ 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 'Peplers and Peplows' pepler.one-name.net ________________________________ From: Doug Beezley <dbeezley@gmail.com> To: Goons Mailing List <goons@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 9:48 AM Subject: [G] Defining an ONS - Size of project The is a recent discussion of "Scope of an ONS - Spouses families". I believe it a good thing to compare notes on how we define what we do. There has been a discussion about estimating the size of the ONS. Unless I've missed something (and most likely I have), the most specific ideas have to do with using UK census figures which are, of course, a limited population. The tools I have used are: http://forebears.io/surnames/ http://worldnames.publicprofiler.org/ They each have their advantages. I find that, for statistical purposes, Forebears is more useful but I've used both for maps that can drill down into the statistics. I suspect most such tools are going to be more useful for English based names, but I have no way to know that, as mine is clearly of Old English derivation. I have found no other derivation that would lead to modern usage of the name with its principal variations (in order of prevalence) Beasley, Beesley, Beazley, and Beezley. Minor variations might include Beasly or Beesly. I do include a number of deviations if they are statistically significant because there are many that represent misspellings that are likely intended to be one of the major variations. It is necessary to approach this with a good idea of what are your variations and what are your deviations. In order to capture the best range, it is necessary to search for more than one variation. Then it is necessary to sort out results that fall below a level of statistical significance. At some point, you come up with a number that seems a solid estimate. Before I found the links above, I used the US 2000 census which listed incidence and ranking of all surnames registering at least 100 individuals. In that case, the four major variations accounted for 50,948. The only logical deviations (3) that made the cut only added another 750. Using Forebears, the US count for the four major variations is 59,441, adding 866 for another 6 deviations. The world count (filtering out countries and deviations to a level of significance at least 98% of the total world count) The Total World Count (all countries, all variations/deviations) is 85,305. The TWC of the four major variations is 82,392. The Total World Filtered Count is 84,122 and the TWFC for the four major variations is 81,314. Stepping back from all the reasons why precise numbers are useless, we can come up with a range that I would feel safe saying the incidence of my surname to be between 80,000 and 90,000 worldwide. While the capture of any particular surname in these tools is going to vary, the results need to be taken with a grain of salt. However, we might be able to broadly compare the size of our ONS projects and how the conduct and results of the project may vary at different size levels. Here are links to the charts where I took my numbers in the narrative above: Compare US 2000 census with Forebears: https://1drv.ms/i/s!AqrESx5rTBC7j-cB-UKi0CQUzfJwdQ Forebears results; variations and deviations by country: https://1drv.ms/i/s!AqrESx5rTBC7j-cAR6jIwozunuyEWA Doug Beezley _____________________________________________ Information and admin page: http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ ------------------------------- 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

Hi Doug Bright and Shiny Object. Have a look at this. http://www.geneabloggers.com/genealogy-doover-bso/ Now I know what it is will I cease to be distracted by it? Not likely. June Willing Guild of One-Name Studies member no 2117 Willing/Willings One-Name Study http://one-name.org/name_profile/Willing/ Willing/Willings DNA Project https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/willing Dominicus One-Name Study http://one-name.org/name_profile/dominicus/ > On 25 Apr 2017, at 14:00, Doug Beezley <dbeezley@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thank you for that summary, Fiona. Could you help me with "BSO"? What is that? > Doug >

HAH! That's great. My life is one BSO after another. Glad I looked at it right away rather than putting it on a list. Thanks! d On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:09 AM, June Willing <june.willing@one-name.org> wrote: > Hi Doug > > Bright and Shiny Object. > > Have a look at this. > > http://www.geneabloggers.com/genealogy-doover-bso/ > > Now I know what it is will I cease to be distracted by it? Not likely. > > June Willing > Guild of One-Name Studies member no 2117 > Willing/Willings One-Name Study > http://one-name.org/name_profile/Willing/ > Willing/Willings DNA Project > https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/willing > Dominicus One-Name Study > http://one-name.org/name_profile/dominicus/ > >> On 25 Apr 2017, at 14:00, Doug Beezley <dbeezley@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Thank you for that summary, Fiona. Could you help me with "BSO"? What is that? >> Doug >> > > > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > 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 usually try to include parents-in-law, also second (or subsequent!) spouses of sons- or daughters-in-law, because ONS children often become part of the step family. I follow ONS daughters through their life cycle, as far as possible, but don’t include their children. Like Chris, my trees are liberally sprinkled with Mary [—?—]s, but I try very hard to identify the maiden names before adding the [—?—]. When I started my ONS I used to include any offspring or descendants of ONS daughters who had the ONS as a forename or middle name, but I realised that it was impossible to be consistent when collecting these, and they really represented BSOs that were distracting me from the main research. So, with some regret, I ditched them. Fiona Tipple > On 24 Apr 2017, at 00:45, Doug Beezley <dbeezley@gmail.com> wrote: > > Interesting question and discussion. I've felt that I have been rather > restrictive because the first interest of most people in their > genealogy is ancestors of all surnames. Without limits, there is a lot > of "spread". When I first got started in genealogy I, of course, > sought all my ancestors (then all my wife's ancestors) but then chose > certain surnames of interest to me to develop descendants of the > earliest ancestor of that name. I did ALL descendants and parents of > spouses, but sometimes a story would lead me in other directions. When > my interest became stronger in my own surname, Beezley, I continued > with all descendants including spouses and spouse's parents. Then I > started working with Beezley's not related to me and finally to full > ONS scope... all variations (Beasley, the most prevalent). > > Now that I've expanded to the point that I have nearly 100 lineage > trees, I now stick with only Beasley-named descendants and spouses. > HOWEVER... whenever I get a project participant who is not bearing the > Beasley surname, I include their full pedigree to their Beasley > ancestor so all can see how they connect to the projects. One of my > most active participants is connected by her great-grandmother whose > maiden name was Beezley. > > I do find that a somewhat more "liberal" inclusion policy is helpful > for finding clues based on autosomal DNA. All my lineage trees or > Patriarch Trees are defined, wherever possible, by YDNA Haplotype. But > sometimes there are no male descendants and autosomal is the only way > to get a window into the past. > > Doug Beezley > Cincinnati OH > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 3:07 PM, <christopher.gray@gray-ons.org> wrote: >> It depends <grin>. For 90% (nice round number) of my families I just have >> the spouse as "Mary [--?--]" with an approximate data / place of birth - >> this is a quick approach to enable me to process people quickly. However, >> if I am digging for information on behalf of someone else, then I will try >> and find Mary's parents by looking (for example) at the Census prior to her >> marriage. Where I am digging in a small community, then I may well follow a >> few families as it is likely that they will inter-marry. >> >> For my own ancestors - then I go off down all branches and do not limit my >> work to just the registered name. >> >> Regards >> >> Chris >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: GOONS >> [mailto:goons-bounces+christopher.gray=gray-ons.org@rootsweb.com] On Behalf >> Of Ken Toll >> Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2017 3:05 PM >> To: Goons mailing list >> Subject: Re: [G] Scope of an ONS - Spouses families >> >> I guess mine process is very similar to other responses. >> >> However, I do very it a bit according to circumstances... >> >> Where Descendants of people in my ONS volunteer information, I add it to the >> Trees (with their permission) and credit them as the source. >> This gives a degree of 'buy-in' to my ONS from people who may not hold the >> name, but have a strong family link. Always bear in mind that things like >> Bibles and photos often disappear down the female line, and having those >> names in your Trees can act as bait <grin> >> >> My other exceptions are in small or sparse communities where: >> - Cousins intermarry, and >> - Siblings intermarry with the 'children' of a neighboring farm. >> Studying the wider family can often help untangle complicated relationships. >> >> Ken >> >> >> >> >> _____________________________________________ >> >> Information and admin page: >> http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > 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 is a recent discussion of "Scope of an ONS - Spouses families". I believe it a good thing to compare notes on how we define what we do. There has been a discussion about estimating the size of the ONS. Unless I've missed something (and most likely I have), the most specific ideas have to do with using UK census figures which are, of course, a limited population. The tools I have used are: http://forebears.io/surnames/ http://worldnames.publicprofiler.org/ They each have their advantages. I find that, for statistical purposes, Forebears is more useful but I've used both for maps that can drill down into the statistics. I suspect most such tools are going to be more useful for English based names, but I have no way to know that, as mine is clearly of Old English derivation. I have found no other derivation that would lead to modern usage of the name with its principal variations (in order of prevalence) Beasley, Beesley, Beazley, and Beezley. Minor variations might include Beasly or Beesly. I do include a number of deviations if they are statistically significant because there are many that represent misspellings that are likely intended to be one of the major variations. It is necessary to approach this with a good idea of what are your variations and what are your deviations. In order to capture the best range, it is necessary to search for more than one variation. Then it is necessary to sort out results that fall below a level of statistical significance. At some point, you come up with a number that seems a solid estimate. Before I found the links above, I used the US 2000 census which listed incidence and ranking of all surnames registering at least 100 individuals. In that case, the four major variations accounted for 50,948. The only logical deviations (3) that made the cut only added another 750. Using Forebears, the US count for the four major variations is 59,441, adding 866 for another 6 deviations. The world count (filtering out countries and deviations to a level of significance at least 98% of the total world count) The Total World Count (all countries, all variations/deviations) is 85,305. The TWC of the four major variations is 82,392. The Total World Filtered Count is 84,122 and the TWFC for the four major variations is 81,314. Stepping back from all the reasons why precise numbers are useless, we can come up with a range that I would feel safe saying the incidence of my surname to be between 80,000 and 90,000 worldwide. While the capture of any particular surname in these tools is going to vary, the results need to be taken with a grain of salt. However, we might be able to broadly compare the size of our ONS projects and how the conduct and results of the project may vary at different size levels. Here are links to the charts where I took my numbers in the narrative above: Compare US 2000 census with Forebears: https://1drv.ms/i/s!AqrESx5rTBC7j-cB-UKi0CQUzfJwdQ Forebears results; variations and deviations by country: https://1drv.ms/i/s!AqrESx5rTBC7j-cAR6jIwozunuyEWA Doug Beezley

Thank you for that summary, Fiona. Could you help me with "BSO"? What is that? Doug On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Fíona Tipple <fiona.tipple@ucd.ie> wrote: > I usually try to include parents-in-law, also second (or subsequent!) spouses of sons- or daughters-in-law, because ONS children often become part of the step family. I follow ONS daughters through their life cycle, as far as possible, but don’t include their children. Like Chris, my trees are liberally sprinkled with Mary [—?—]s, but I try very hard to identify the maiden names before adding the [—?—]. > > When I started my ONS I used to include any offspring or descendants of ONS daughters who had the ONS as a forename or middle name, but I realised that it was impossible to be consistent when collecting these, and they really represented BSOs that were distracting me from the main research. So, with some regret, I ditched them. > > Fiona Tipple > > >> On 24 Apr 2017, at 00:45, Doug Beezley <dbeezley@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Interesting question and discussion. I've felt that I have been rather >> restrictive because the first interest of most people in their >> genealogy is ancestors of all surnames. Without limits, there is a lot >> of "spread". When I first got started in genealogy I, of course, >> sought all my ancestors (then all my wife's ancestors) but then chose >> certain surnames of interest to me to develop descendants of the >> earliest ancestor of that name. I did ALL descendants and parents of >> spouses, but sometimes a story would lead me in other directions. When >> my interest became stronger in my own surname, Beezley, I continued >> with all descendants including spouses and spouse's parents. Then I >> started working with Beezley's not related to me and finally to full >> ONS scope... all variations (Beasley, the most prevalent). >> >> Now that I've expanded to the point that I have nearly 100 lineage >> trees, I now stick with only Beasley-named descendants and spouses. >> HOWEVER... whenever I get a project participant who is not bearing the >> Beasley surname, I include their full pedigree to their Beasley >> ancestor so all can see how they connect to the projects. One of my >> most active participants is connected by her great-grandmother whose >> maiden name was Beezley. >> >> I do find that a somewhat more "liberal" inclusion policy is helpful >> for finding clues based on autosomal DNA. All my lineage trees or >> Patriarch Trees are defined, wherever possible, by YDNA Haplotype. But >> sometimes there are no male descendants and autosomal is the only way >> to get a window into the past. >> >> Doug Beezley >> Cincinnati OH >> >> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 3:07 PM, <christopher.gray@gray-ons.org> wrote: >>> It depends <grin>. For 90% (nice round number) of my families I just have >>> the spouse as "Mary [--?--]" with an approximate data / place of birth - >>> this is a quick approach to enable me to process people quickly. However, >>> if I am digging for information on behalf of someone else, then I will try >>> and find Mary's parents by looking (for example) at the Census prior to her >>> marriage. Where I am digging in a small community, then I may well follow a >>> few families as it is likely that they will inter-marry. >>> >>> For my own ancestors - then I go off down all branches and do not limit my >>> work to just the registered name. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: GOONS >>> [mailto:goons-bounces+christopher.gray=gray-ons.org@rootsweb.com] On Behalf >>> Of Ken Toll >>> Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2017 3:05 PM >>> To: Goons mailing list >>> Subject: Re: [G] Scope of an ONS - Spouses families >>> >>> I guess mine process is very similar to other responses. >>> >>> However, I do very it a bit according to circumstances... >>> >>> Where Descendants of people in my ONS volunteer information, I add it to the >>> Trees (with their permission) and credit them as the source. >>> This gives a degree of 'buy-in' to my ONS from people who may not hold the >>> name, but have a strong family link. Always bear in mind that things like >>> Bibles and photos often disappear down the female line, and having those >>> names in your Trees can act as bait <grin> >>> >>> My other exceptions are in small or sparse communities where: >>> - Cousins intermarry, and >>> - Siblings intermarry with the 'children' of a neighboring farm. >>> Studying the wider family can often help untangle complicated relationships. >>> >>> Ken >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _____________________________________________ >>> >>> Information and admin page: >>> http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ >>> ------------------------------- >>> 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 >> _____________________________________________ >> >> Information and admin page: >> http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > > > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > 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 just saw this post and have not checked the links. But I might make the question a little more specific. There is no question that there are MANY uses for autosomal DNA and, surely, many ways to apply those uses. What I have often wondered is whether there are some procedures that might apply most directly to ONS by filtering through the matched segments to come up with a reasonable substitute when YDNA is not possible. For example, I've had people point to a series of autosomal matches as "proof" that two men, generations back, have a father/son relationship when documentary evidence shows it NOT to be so. In my understanding, there is still plenty of room that the match could have come through a female line that does not connect the father and son. I'm not really skilled at analyzing autosomal DNA and most of my ONS work is with YDNA, but it seems that there should be some way of evaluating a collection of autosomal connections to increase the likelihood of establishing a male line connection. If such a thing hasn't been written, it seems that some statistician should be able to come up with something. Doug Beezley d On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:46 AM, Garry F Bell <hellolad@slingshot.co.nz> wrote: > Thank you to all those who supplied such very good suggestions. Garry > Auckland NZ > > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > 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