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

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