Can I add my experiences (and to link two different threads on recent postings). I joined the Guild without registering a surname because at that time I was not confident that I could (or wanted to) do a One Name Study. I joined as an associate member for several reasons - one of which was so I could benefit from the GMI in researching for all my own various ancestral lines in East London (thanks mainly to Howard Benbrook's vast input of Cardinal Points). Then, in order to "put something back", I submitted (with Mary Rix's approval) details of all marriages I had found for any surname in any place to help fill in the many gaps in the GMI sequencing that existed in it's early days. Since then I have done 4 marriage challenges and have submitted all the results to the GMI as well as all marriages I have now found as part of my own (now registered) One Name Study. Following the recent exchange of e-mails about "ownership", it makes me wonder how my submissions would be classed as they seem to fall into 3 broad categories:- 1) my own ONS surname marriages 2) my other surname marriages for (possibly) non-registered surnames 3) my MC results I must say that I willingly submitted all my own marriages (both ONS and others) for the benefit of other Guild members without any thought of "protecting" them. Also, most of the marriages were transcribed from parish registers deposited in various record offices so I could not really claim "ownership" anyway. My view is that if people are worried about data being stolen then do not give it to anyone else. Regards Brian Horridge

And I agree with that thought. Once I have handed over material (I have submitted over 5000 entries to the probate index) I no longer feel any ownership of that material. I do not mind being contacted and look forward to such contacts. I think that the Guild has to look to the bottom line with regard to ownership of databases. It is an enticement for people to actually join to have access but on the other hand anyone that writes to me gets all the information that I have if it fits into their particular line of research. It is the arrangement of the data that gives it its value as many have noted. To prevent the harvesting of that arrangement of data is a bit of a conundrum. The greater the access to data the more that one can achieve (I belong to Ancestry, Find My Past, My Heritage and benefit greatly from all of these sites). I do not see us as that kind of site but rather a volunteer group that nevertheless does need some funding to move ahead. Would I object to selling access to say Find My Past or any of the other groups? No absolutely not, I think it would be good value for the money and increasing the accessibility to non-members would happen on our terms and not the terms of a harvester. I joined the Guild as a new researcher in genealogy ten years ago and immediately took on Pincombe and Siderfin as my one name studies - sort of a sink or swim attitude on my part. I have since surrendered Siderfin to my cousin Mark who lives in England and taken on Blake which I wouldn't have even considered eight years ago when I first joined but being in the society has shown me that I could sink my teeth into such a surname. The numbers of users though are so much greater on these pay sites and it would increase our visibility. Does it affect our Charity status? I have no idea actually as I live in Canada. But I notice FHS in the UK do allow Find My Past access to their data. Elizabeth (Blake) Kipp BA PLCGS Website: http://www.kipp-blake-families.ca/elizabethmain.htm Blog: http://kippeeb.blogspot.ca/ Guild of One Name Studies #4600 (Blake, Pincombe) The Surname Society #1004 (Bedard, Dumoulin, Gregoire, Prevost, Blake, Pincombe, Knight, Rawlings, Cheatle, Butt, Buller, Taylor, Gray, Farmer, Lywood, Rew, Routledge, Welch, Coleman, Lambden, Arnold, Peck, Rowcliffe, Siderfin, Cobb, Beard) On 2014-12-19 8:20 AM, Brian Horridge via wrote: > Can I add my experiences (and to link two different threads on recent > postings). > > I joined the Guild without registering a surname because at that time I > was not confident that I could (or wanted to) do a One Name Study. I > joined as an associate member for several reasons - one of which was so > I could benefit from the GMI in researching for all my own various > ancestral lines in East London (thanks mainly to Howard Benbrook's vast > input of Cardinal Points). Then, in order to "put something back", I > submitted (with Mary Rix's approval) details of all marriages I had > found for any surname in any place to help fill in the many gaps in the > GMI sequencing that existed in it's early days. Since then I have done > 4 marriage challenges and have submitted all the results to the GMI as > well as all marriages I have now found as part of my own (now > registered) One Name Study. > > Following the recent exchange of e-mails about "ownership", it makes me > wonder how my submissions would be classed as they seem to fall into 3 > broad categories:- > > 1) my own ONS surname marriages > 2) my other surname marriages for (possibly) non-registered surnames > 3) my MC results > > I must say that I willingly submitted all my own marriages (both ONS and > others) for the benefit of other Guild members without any thought of > "protecting" them. Also, most of the marriages were transcribed from > parish registers deposited in various record offices so I could not > really claim "ownership" anyway. > > My view is that if people are worried about data being stolen then do > not give it to anyone else. > > Regards > > Brian Horridge > > > > > > > > _____________________________________________ > > 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 >

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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Horridge via" <goons@rootsweb.com> To: <goons@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 1:20 PM Subject: [G] Submitting entries to the GMI > Can I add my experiences (and to link two different threads on recent > postings). > > I joined the Guild without registering a surname because at that time I > was not confident that I could (or wanted to) do a One Name Study. I > joined as an associate member for several reasons - one of which was so > I could benefit from the GMI in researching for all my own various > ancestral lines in East London (thanks mainly to Howard Benbrook's vast > input of Cardinal Points). Then, in order to "put something back", I > submitted (with Mary Rix's approval) details of all marriages I had > found for any surname in any place to help fill in the many gaps in the > GMI sequencing that existed in it's early days. Since then I have done > 4 marriage challenges and have submitted all the results to the GMI as > well as all marriages I have now found as part of my own (now > registered) One Name Study. > > Following the recent exchange of e-mails about "ownership", it makes me > wonder how my submissions would be classed as they seem to fall into 3 > broad categories:- > > 1) my own ONS surname marriages > 2) my other surname marriages for (possibly) non-registered surnames > 3) my MC results > > I must say that I willingly submitted all my own marriages (both ONS and > others) for the benefit of other Guild members without any thought of > "protecting" them. Also, most of the marriages were transcribed from > parish registers deposited in various record offices so I could not > really claim "ownership" anyway. > > My view is that if people are worried about data being stolen then do > not give it to anyone else. > > Regards > > Brian Horridge > > > > > > > > _____________________________________________ > > 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 >