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> To: "Anne Shankland" <shankland@one-name.org>; "Anne Shankland" <anne.shankland@gmail.com>; "GOONS" <goons@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 7:59 PM Subject: Re: [G] profile page references to Index records > Definitely will take a look at this over the holidays as I think it is > a very good idea to have this type of data available and it should be > (that is a question for the tech folks) a process of making that > choice (from here on out) when we provide data to the uploaded. As to > those who contributed data in the past, perhaps we can ask the > question and get a response from those members. > > One question I have on the language is what is a member who does not > have a registered study and is contributing data called? We might want > to use the term contributor (all around) rather than owner because I > am guessing that we have all gathered data that is at archives, > libraries, online, etc. to add to our databases and we don't really > "own" it anymore than we "own" our surnames - we have registered them. > Am I missing something? (And I am not interested in having a > discussion about members with and without registered studies - every > member of the Guild is somewhere in their journey here and I am happy > to learn from and share with all my fellow GOONs). > > Now I need to get busy and provide some of that data so Anne, Cliff, > Marie and the others have some more data to work with. > > Thanks for all your efforts (past and present), > Tessa > > Tessa Keough > Guild of One-Name Studies, Member No. 5089 > Keough (Keogh, Kough & Kehoe) Registered ONS > > > > > 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 >

Don't get so many fields that people take one look and leave. THe GMI is special in that a lot of the data seems to have come from marriage challenges ( I know most of my results are CPs) and so there really is no contact person and the people that are studying the name may not have more info about the person than the challenge found. There are a lot of points to consider. 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: Anne Shankland via <goons@rootsweb.com> To: Tessa Keough <tessa.keough@one-name.org>; goons@rootsweb.com Cc: Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 5:28 PM Subject: Re: [G] profile page references to Index records 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

I went off to bed pondering on Anne's comment regarding the GMI. Currently I have not contributed, but this week through the prompt of Nigel & Anne adding the link to the website to the indexes then the page showing the amount of indexes I revisited this this topic. Firstly, the links at the bottom of the search pages are incredibly useful. I have links in my own ancestry to five surnames none of which are registered by me. I have material that I can and will happily submit to the GMI (and other indexes) which I have gathered through the course of my own research. So I was in agreement with Tessa, that material might be submitted by person A but the study is registered to person B. I therefore feel that Anne's suggestion of two fields representing the contributor and the study holder covers that point off rather nicely. Should there be an addition note column? I might submit marriage certificate information in relation to a surname of interest to me would be the contributor and the member of the Guild who is the registered member would also be shown. Is there an instance when other material might be added to this particular entry that might cause me to be "knocked off" as the contributor? Or would, if appropriate a Cardinal Point be added that show as a separate entry? Of course the witnesses name on any marriage certificate might for example link into someone else's ONS quite easily. Dick Chandler raised a very valid point in his first email in this thread "2. What is to stop someone (acting as an individual or acting on behalf of an organisation - commercial or otherwise - perhaps even a competitor) joining the Guild and lifting ALL of EVERY contributor's information, and doing with it whatever they like?" I think on the whole that the genealogical community is trustworthy, honest, has integrity and is transparent, although I will admit that sometimes there are people do surprise you. I would say that should it be discovered that anyone assumes (either through historical or new) membership and then actively lifts all the work as Dick describes then that would be dealt with within the parameters of the Constitution. I assume that there is a functionality within with website that enables the web master and team to see what activity there is against any given membership number? There are of course instances when you might want to download a complete section of something - say part of the Wiki, but the difference is downloading for your own use and downloading for the use of others who are not Guild members. Thanks to Anne and Nigel and perhaps others we have enabled a workable and changing website. We have a steady stream of material & indexes at our disposal and we also have the ability through the leadership of the Guild administration to enable discussion through this forum. Mary Rix contributed and maintained the GMI and has left it in a good position that we can take the material and the foundations and build upon it. That is a progressive organisation. Regards Julie Goucher Guild Member 3925 Orlando & Worship ONS Regional Rep ~ South Devon On 18 December 2014 at 22:28, Anne Shankland via <goons@rootsweb.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> > To: "Anne Shankland" <shankland@one-name.org>; "Anne Shankland" > <anne.shankland@gmail.com>; "GOONS" <goons@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 7:59 PM > Subject: Re: [G] profile page references to Index records > > >> Definitely will take a look at this over the holidays as I think it is >> a very good idea to have this type of data available and it should be >> (that is a question for the tech folks) a process of making that >> choice (from here on out) when we provide data to the uploaded. As to >> those who contributed data in the past, perhaps we can ask the >> question and get a response from those members. >> >> One question I have on the language is what is a member who does not >> have a registered study and is contributing data called? We might want >> to use the term contributor (all around) rather than owner because I >> am guessing that we have all gathered data that is at archives, >> libraries, online, etc. to add to our databases and we don't really >> "own" it anymore than we "own" our surnames - we have registered them. >> Am I missing something? (And I am not interested in having a >> discussion about members with and without registered studies - every >> member of the Guild is somewhere in their journey here and I am happy >> to learn from and share with all my fellow GOONs). >> >> Now I need to get busy and provide some of that data so Anne, Cliff, >> Marie and the others have some more data to work with. >> >> Thanks for all your efforts (past and present), >> Tessa >> >> Tessa Keough >> Guild of One-Name Studies, Member No. 5089 >> Keough (Keogh, Kough & Kehoe) Registered ONS >> >> >> >> >> 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