Like many Guild members, I suspect, I plod on with my own study and hope that those volunteers who serve on the committee have things under control and are thinking carefully about (i) what we are doing, (ii) where we are heading, given how quickly the world is changing around us, particularly the availability of data and its consequent impact on how people work and what they/we need and also (iii) how we should best get there. So I put my hand up and admit that I haven't read committee minutes since I gave up my position thereon. Ooops. I read the report concerned and like the overall approach. Our committee is clearly engaged in debating at least the first two of the above issues. Anne will correct me if I'm wrong but it does appear that it's the technical aspects of the old GMI database (eg, heavy load on the webserver) as much as anything else that caused the "dinosaur" reference. I take her point that "something must be done". Even knowing that the committee will have discussed the materials aready and may not feel able to respond directly, I do have 2 or 3 thoughts which I hope will contribute to the longer-term debate: 1 - I remember reading something like "the GMI contributes very little beyond what's available from FreeBMD." I submit that that statement is missing a couple of aspects: -a- particularly for new members coming to it for the first time, it will in several cases already have solved the puzzle of which two of the four people typically on the same RD/Qr/Vol/Page actually married each other. Sure, it doesn't have all of the details but if you're reconstructing families, it saves a lot of time and it's very welcome to a new member to find that the Guild already has some resources that can help. -b- (more importantly, IMHO) seeing the body of knowledge that has already been built up by previous members, it should send the message to all members of the importance of doing their part and sharing their own findings. Yes, it's subtle, but nonetheless powerful. Nobody says you must contribute, or even that it's expected, but it is hoped for. And it's my firm belief that once people have contributed to a database they themselves feel that they have some "sweat equity" in it which further binds all of us together. 2 - In that regard, I'd just point out that all the data I have provided to the Guild has been freely shared, without even a consideration that there might be any terms and conditions. Others may feel differently, but I point this out in the expectation that I am not alone and that perhaps it's not knotty for everyone. 3 - As has been recently discussed on the forum, having the GMI explicitly has, I think, had some benefit on the collection of cardinal points beyond just members' studies' marriages, which are then aids to the research of all members and perhaps the promotion of the Guild to the public through the marriage locator. So I support the merging of the databases into one big one for all marriages, from wherever in the world and whenever, no matter how much or how little detail AND a simpler search mechanism, AS LONG AS we remember the multiple sources of data and the multiple ways that it is delivered into the database AND we do what we can to keep up the enthusiasm of all concerned, even if we need to change a few things along the way. So my questions here are (hoping they've already been considered): - how can we change things for the better while retaining the support, enthusiasm and experience of those involved in getting us to this point? - one of the potential downsides of a very flexible database is that it can be confusing to people wanting to contribute. We need to allow multiple ways to contribute AND make it easy to do so, not just once, but whenever the member wants to resubmit fresh data.. Really hope this helps, at least a bit! Regards Paul On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Anne Shankland via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: > It is very easy to quote a word out of context and thus give the wrong > impression. I hope that the members will read the report on the website to > understand the context for my comment on the GMI as the rationale for the > Worldwide Marriages Index. > > Anne Shankland > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mary Rix via" <goons@rootsweb.com> > To: <goons@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 9:05 PM > Subject: [G] Guild Marriage Index > > >> Dear Members >> >> I am saddened to see the GMI described as a "dinosaur" in the Review of >> the Guild Marriage Indexes by Anne Shankland in the Documentation for >> the last Committee Meeting (No 21 on the Agenda) >> http://one-name.org/members/minutes/2014Nov/21%20Review%20of%20Guild%20Marriage%20Indexes.pdf. >> >> >> Mary Rix >> >> > > _____________________________________________ > > 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

Right on - Paul. There are as many ways to contribute as there are members. I know when I first joined , Mary held my hand all the way through contributing to the GMI, Anne answered my queries through the process of setting up the Worldwide index ( even if I confused things at time being a 'crazy American') and Paul and John have been enthusiastic supporters of both indexes. Let's have more of that attitude Therefore - I could use more contributions - do you have even one marriage that is in Australia, Estonia or is before 1837 or after 1911? Believe me - it's easy to contribute and very appreciated. So all those critics - how about some contributions - to me - to Mary - or even better - both? These indexes depend on volunteers contributing something to index. And while you're in the mood - get your profile page together - even if its just putting in links to your website, archive or DNA project. Visitors to the site don't get into the members room or the old contact pages - so if you want those links found - they have to be on your profile. 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 ________________________________ So my questions here are (hoping they've already been considered): - how can we change things for the better while retaining the support, enthusiasm and experience of those involved in getting us to this point? - one of the potential downsides of a very flexible database is that it can be confusing to people wanting to contribute. We need to allow multiple ways to contribute AND make it easy to do so, not just once, but whenever the member wants to resubmit fresh data.. Really hope this helps, at least a bit! Regards Paul

I have over the last few days been reading the various reports. There is much to digest and especially the report produced by Anne as it lengthy and deals with some important assets held by the Guild on behalf of, and for the benefit of the members. I will therefore comment further as necessary when I have re-read these reports. I do feel compelled to comment on the initial comment on this thread. I genuinely do not believe that Anne has intended to disrespect Mary or the huge contribution that has been made to the Guild. The remark was made as a demonstrative point - to express that whilst the data is of course important to the Guild, the way it is structured, is out dated and can be used and stored in a much more efficient and modern method. Nothing more, nothing less. We all appreciate the work each of us do, both in terms of administration of the Guild or members collecting and processing data to add to the indexes that are held for members. The considerable time it takes to manage and maintain those numerous indexes. The work of volunteers. I agree with subsequent comments, I think from Tessa, who said we need to (not a direct quote) to take a step back. We should look at the proposal & paper written by Anne and the initial details outline in Paul Millington's paper. We should, and as family historians we know that we need to take ALL the facts and look at them in the context that they are presented in, before we, the membership make any individual decisions or comments. To not include all the facts compromises how we make informed decisions and comments. We, the membership asked that the committee was more transparent. The committee is actively being more transparent. Enabling us as members to be more involved. We should not be asking for something and then virtually complaining when it is done, because we do not like what we read, see or take something out of the context it was written in. We also need to remember that this forum is accessible to non members of the Guild and we should therefore be mindfull of that when writing, especially if non members access the email thread via the archives and then do not have access to the papers to which reference is made. That enables non members to build an inaccurate image of the Guild. Regards Julie Goucher Guild Member 3925 Orlando & Worship ONS Regional Rep South Devon > > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Anne Shankland via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > It is very easy to quote a word out of context and thus give the wrong > > impression. I hope that the members will read the report on the website to > > understand the context for my comment on the GMI as the rationale for the > > Worldwide Marriages Index. > > > > Anne Shankland > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mary Rix via" <goons@rootsweb.com> > > To: <goons@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 9:05 PM > > Subject: [G] Guild Marriage Index > > > > > >> Dear Members > >> > >> I am saddened to see the GMI described as a "dinosaur" in the Review of > >> the Guild Marriage Indexes by Anne Shankland in the Documentation for > >> the last Committee Meeting (No 21 on the Agenda) > >> http://one-name.org/members/minutes/2014Nov/21%20Review%20of%20Guild%20Marriage%20Indexes.pdf. > >> > >> > >> Mary Rix > >> > >>

Hi, I am a new member and was greatly encouraged by Mr Howes' thoughts. The reason I joined the guild was because of the wealth of extraneous Thornton data I was collecting as I singlemindly plodded on with my own line of research. To me it seemed sad there was no way of storing all this valuable data that had no direct bearing on my research, this seems to mirror some of his thoughts. I am interested in databases and what form they take. Having hit a brick wall, I decided to continue my own researcher by indexing all the Thorntons or related name variants in the Old Parish Records in Scotland. I did it by eye onto a word page and I doubt it could be readily copied. similarly the related research on all the Thorntons in the 1851 Census in West Lothian is probably not in an acceptable form for copying. I have found some new variants of my name And am contemplating updating first exercise using Excel to sort the whole data base. I would have thought this would be one suitable storage vase, as it is commonly available, and therefore when superceded [as is the fate of all things it seems], the IT community will produce a programme to transcribe it into the latest format. As I am new to the Guild I would be interested in feedback. Norman Thornton -----Original Message----- From: Paul Howes via Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 2:11 AM To: goons@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [G] Guild Marriage Index Like many Guild members, I suspect, I plod on with my own study and hope that those volunteers who serve on the committee have things under control and are thinking carefully about (i) what we are doing, (ii) where we are heading, given how quickly the world is changing around us, particularly the availability of data and its consequent impact on how people work and what they/we need and also (iii) how we should best get there. So I put my hand up and admit that I haven't read committee minutes since I gave up my position thereon. Ooops. I read the report concerned and like the overall approach. Our committee is clearly engaged in debating at least the first two of the above issues. Anne will correct me if I'm wrong but it does appear that it's the technical aspects of the old GMI database (eg, heavy load on the webserver) as much as anything else that caused the "dinosaur" reference. I take her point that "something must be done". Even knowing that the committee will have discussed the materials aready and may not feel able to respond directly, I do have 2 or 3 thoughts which I hope will contribute to the longer-term debate: 1 - I remember reading something like "the GMI contributes very little beyond what's available from FreeBMD." I submit that that statement is missing a couple of aspects: -a- particularly for new members coming to it for the first time, it will in several cases already have solved the puzzle of which two of the four people typically on the same RD/Qr/Vol/Page actually married each other. Sure, it doesn't have all of the details but if you're reconstructing families, it saves a lot of time and it's very welcome to a new member to find that the Guild already has some resources that can help. -b- (more importantly, IMHO) seeing the body of knowledge that has already been built up by previous members, it should send the message to all members of the importance of doing their part and sharing their own findings. Yes, it's subtle, but nonetheless powerful. Nobody says you must contribute, or even that it's expected, but it is hoped for. And it's my firm belief that once people have contributed to a database they themselves feel that they have some "sweat equity" in it which further binds all of us together. 2 - In that regard, I'd just point out that all the data I have provided to the Guild has been freely shared, without even a consideration that there might be any terms and conditions. Others may feel differently, but I point this out in the expectation that I am not alone and that perhaps it's not knotty for everyone. 3 - As has been recently discussed on the forum, having the GMI explicitly has, I think, had some benefit on the collection of cardinal points beyond just members' studies' marriages, which are then aids to the research of all members and perhaps the promotion of the Guild to the public through the marriage locator. So I support the merging of the databases into one big one for all marriages, from wherever in the world and whenever, no matter how much or how little detail AND a simpler search mechanism, AS LONG AS we remember the multiple sources of data and the multiple ways that it is delivered into the database AND we do what we can to keep up the enthusiasm of all concerned, even if we need to change a few things along the way. So my questions here are (hoping they've already been considered): - how can we change things for the better while retaining the support, enthusiasm and experience of those involved in getting us to this point? - one of the potential downsides of a very flexible database is that it can be confusing to people wanting to contribute. We need to allow multiple ways to contribute AND make it easy to do so, not just once, but whenever the member wants to resubmit fresh data.. Really hope this helps, at least a bit! Regards Paul On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Anne Shankland via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: > It is very easy to quote a word out of context and thus give the wrong > impression. I hope that the members will read the report on the website > to > understand the context for my comment on the GMI as the rationale for the > Worldwide Marriages Index. > > Anne Shankland > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mary Rix via" <goons@rootsweb.com> > To: <goons@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 9:05 PM > Subject: [G] Guild Marriage Index > > >> Dear Members >> >> I am saddened to see the GMI described as a "dinosaur" in the Review of >> the Guild Marriage Indexes by Anne Shankland in the Documentation for >> the last Committee Meeting (No 21 on the Agenda) >> http://one-name.org/members/minutes/2014Nov/21%20Review%20of%20Guild%20Marriage%20Indexes.pdf. >> >> >> Mary Rix >> >> > > _____________________________________________ > > 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 _____________________________________________ 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

Sounds like you are off to a good start - spreadsheets are great for gathering data and sorting it. Its especially nice now that Family Search actually provides a button that allows one to do this and their spreadsheet includes the transcribing batch number. I urge you not to overlook the benefits of Family connecting at the same time. I think you need to incorporate both types of data storage. The Family context acts as a checker for the spreadsheets. Too many times for my happiness, I have discovered that what looked to be a new group of Peplers for me has actually been individuals listed under a completely wrong name in one census or other type data base. Having the family connection has enabled me to verify this - where the single name of John or Mary or William wouldn't. There are many packages out there, I use Roots Magic, but many members also use Legacy ( which I believe has both MAC and windows version), Family Historian and several others. All have different strengths. My normal practice When I get new data (say the 1870 census for the US) - I make my spreadsheet, sort for location and them go and add it as a new fact for each of the individuals on the list. If I can't find the person , I mark the entry and go on to the next. At the end, I come back to the marked people and decide if they are Peplers or not and do I have them already under a different name. I use the family structure ( spouse, parents, kids to help me determine this. Hate to say it but my Peplers weren't all well behaved when it comes to names and spellings, so knowing the parents and siblings has really helped identify some people. One other benefit I have found in using genealogy software comes when I answer queries. I have found that if I send a correspondent a report or chart of their family (even if only 2 generations) and ask them to check it for mistakes or missing information - I usually get a very good response. Seems they love the personal attention, a chance to correct someone with their superior knowledge and just in general feel important. I have gotten some incredible help this way, including a 300 page published book. Producing the report I send, in most cases takes about 5 minutes, so that's a pretty good return. You may already have a genealogy program. If you do - great. But if not, consider getting one. I realy believe crosschecking between tree based and spreadsheet based data collections helps find the discrepancies in each. BTW - since you are spreadsheet based - a contribution to the World Wide Marriage Index would be greatly appreciated. If you have questions - just email me. 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: Norman Thornton via <goons@rootsweb.com> To: Paul Howes <paul@howesfamilies.com>; goons@rootsweb.com Cc: Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2014 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [G] Guild Marriage Index Hi, I am a new member and was greatly encouraged by Mr Howes' thoughts. The reason I joined the guild was because of the wealth of extraneous Thornton data I was collecting as I singlemindly plodded on with my own line of research. To me it seemed sad there was no way of storing all this valuable data that had no direct bearing on my research, this seems to mirror some of his thoughts. I am interested in databases and what form they take. Having hit a brick wall, I decided to continue my own researcher by indexing all the Thorntons or related name variants in the Old Parish Records in Scotland. I did it by eye onto a word page and I doubt it could be readily copied. similarly the related research on all the Thorntons in the 1851 Census in West Lothian is probably not in an acceptable form for copying. I have found some new variants of my name And am contemplating updating first exercise using Excel to sort the whole data base. I would have thought this would be one suitable storage vase, as it is commonly available, and therefore when superceded [as is the fate of all things it seems], the IT community will produce a programme to transcribe it into the latest format. As I am new to the Guild I would be interested in feedback. Norman Thornton