Hi Chris, and others following this thread. I agree that the family tree should be published as soon as you are satisfied with your research up to that point in time. Tomorrow you may find some piece of data that blows your theories apart and so get involved in evaluating modifying your data. But this will at least provide feedback and hopefully constructive criticism from viewers. I think members accept that complete guarantees cannot be given for every scrap of information contained in the material collected and presented, and it may be wise to incorporate a simple concise statement suggesting that it is accurate factual evidence of a family ancestry "as far as is reasonably practicable". This phrase is generally incorporated into Health and Safety Policies where one is also doing ones best to keep people safe but cannot give absolute guarantees or prevent what they call "perverted ingenuity" where someone deliberately breaks all of the rules and is set on harming themselves or others. The "legal high" drugs are a case in point where even a notice suggesting these are "not for human consumption" is still completely ignored. Sorry for straying a little but the mistakes contained within our family tree websites and presentations are more likely to be made by the original recorders for census returns and parish registry entries mis-interpreting information supplied by those present at the time of the census or ceremony for B M D. I have a quandary at the moment which is a good example. Doing some research for two long distant cousins I have found that I have two different John Vayros born in 1862-3 in Wensleydale / Leeds areas and both marrying in 1884 in Wensleydale. The facts show that there are two wives obviously, two sets of children, but new evidence also suggests that my present published website has these two individuals attached to the opposite i.e. wrong parents. But until I am completely sure, having analysed and considered the new set of facts that they are the wrong way round the website on public display will stay as it is. If and when it is modified it will be stored and uploaded as a new gedcom database. And I feel that is the natural process of development that we are all involved in. But I don't think we should ever be frightened of putting our work and theories on display, as long as it is accepted that it is "a work in progress" 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 > On Tuesday, 6 January 2015, 17:55, Christopher Gray via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Colin - while I agree with your view that early publication is beneficial - > I suggest that, in doing so, one accepts that many viewers will treat it as > "rock solid" no matter how many caveats one places around it. > > Personally I place my trees online as soon as I have them. Many, many of > the assumptions I make - for example that if a person is named as a son in a > census that he is a son - are not validated. I leave it to the viewer to > decide on the validity based on seeing the sources and drawing their own > conclusions. I have seen too many on-line trees with errors that are > obvious when one looks at the sources. While I would hope that most of mine > pass that initial scrutiny, I am sure that many of the assumptions would be > disproved if only there were a few more documents out there giving > independent views of what reality actually was. > > One benefit of publishing is to enable people to challenge one's findings. > Mind you, no one has challenged anything I've put on line over the last > twenty years - which is very disappointing. > > Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: goons-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:goons-bounces@rootsweb.com] On > Behalf Of Colin Stevenson via > Sent: 03 January 2015 16:34 > To: goons@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [G] when is a tree good enough to publish? > > It depends on why you want to publish the tree. If you claim it is the > definitive family history you need to be very certain of your facts. At the > other end of the spectrum if it is published as a work in progress with > appropriate caveats then it is a useful research tool for you and others. > Personally I think there is more to gain from 'early ' > publication rather than striving for accuracy. I can see no harm from > publishing a speculative tree provided it is described as such. > > Colin Stevenson (Cavie & Monnington) > _____________________________________________ > > 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 >

Rennison, On 6 Jan 2015, at 18:59, RENNISON john.vayro@sky.com via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: > I have a quandary at the moment which is a good example. Doing some research for two long distant cousins I have found that I have two different John Vayros born in 1862-3 in Wensleydale / Leeds areas and both marrying in 1884 in Wensleydale. The facts show that there are two wives obviously, two sets of children, but new evidence also suggests that my present published website has these two individuals attached to the opposite i.e. wrong parents. But until I am completely sure, having analysed and considered the new set of facts that they are the wrong way round the website on public display will stay as it is. If and when it is modified it will be stored and uploaded as a new gedcom database. > When you find a suspected mismatch like this, do you put a note on your website about it, pending a solution? Or do you just leave everything as it is, without comment, until you sort the problem out? Fiona — 5538 - Duignan & variants > 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 > > > >> On Tuesday, 6 January 2015, 17:55, Christopher Gray via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>> Colin - while I agree with your view that early publication is beneficial - >> I suggest that, in doing so, one accepts that many viewers will treat it as >> "rock solid" no matter how many caveats one places around it. >> >> Personally I place my trees online as soon as I have them. Many, many of >> the assumptions I make - for example that if a person is named as a son in a >> census that he is a son - are not validated. I leave it to the viewer to >> decide on the validity based on seeing the sources and drawing their own >> conclusions. I have seen too many on-line trees with errors that are >> obvious when one looks at the sources. While I would hope that most of mine >> pass that initial scrutiny, I am sure that many of the assumptions would be >> disproved if only there were a few more documents out there giving >> independent views of what reality actually was. >> >> One benefit of publishing is to enable people to challenge one's findings. >> Mind you, no one has challenged anything I've put on line over the last >> twenty years - which is very disappointing. >> >> Chris >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: goons-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:goons-bounces@rootsweb.com] On >> Behalf Of Colin Stevenson via >> Sent: 03 January 2015 16:34 >> To: goons@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [G] when is a tree good enough to publish? >> >> It depends on why you want to publish the tree. If you claim it is the >> definitive family history you need to be very certain of your facts. At the >> other end of the spectrum if it is published as a work in progress with >> appropriate caveats then it is a useful research tool for you and others. >> Personally I think there is more to gain from 'early ' >> publication rather than striving for accuracy. I can see no harm from >> publishing a speculative tree provided it is described as such. >> >> Colin Stevenson (Cavie & Monnington) >> _____________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> > _____________________________________________ > > 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