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

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