The issue of preserving research is a difficult one. I do not buy into the "I won't give it to ancestry because they charge money club". It is another place to park your research. Share your tree - at least for viewing - with other people and someway someone is always going to have access to your information.
Further, you can submit your tree for free to RootsWeb WorldConnect. You, or your designated heir, can have full control of the tree. The tree cannot as easily have pictures (but they can be preserved within the RootsWeb FreePages... and linked into the tree...) but the results are also available to users doing ancestry searches.
You can also deposit your research - maybe with a donation ;-) - to the NEHGS. But they do not have an electronic archive policy yet.
Lastly, you can join the Guild of One Name Studies (www.one-name.org ), and they have an electronic archive for members, even if you have not registered a surname study. AND, there is discussion of possibly something like a TNG archiving service in the future.
To preserve your research, you really need to look at all alternatives.
john.
At 04:00 PM 11/28/2013, William Boswell wrote:
You've brought up an interesting dilemma. What to do with our data before we pass away. I've thought about sending my entire tree to FamilySearch only because it's the only website that doesn't charge subscriber fees. Personally I don't like Ancestry because they profit from our research. At least FS has free digital images for sources. At Ancestry, you can get a membership and add source images to your online tree, cancel your subscription then those images are no longer available even though you already paid for them.
I do worry about the problem of my carefully researched data getting muddled just so non-serious researchers can add more names to jack up their numbers. This is frequently done in Ancestry member trees. I've seen my own direct-line ancestors added to families where they don't belong.
I added and updated information yesterday at FS with hopes that more information will be available for certain people where I do not have birth or death dates.
Bill Boswell
From: John B. Lisle [ mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 11:54 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Integrate with Family Search
Ron,
Let me both agree and disagree with you about FamilySearch.
I agree entirely that FamilySearch tree has lots of problem information on it. However, it has lots of excellent research also that you may not find elsewhere online.
Prior to the Legacy 8 testing cycle, I was somewhat skeptical of it also; however, I became more comfortable with it as a research tool as the testing continued.
I am not the only person who is trying to do serious research who has come to this conclusion.
I know for a fact that many researchers from the Guild of One Name Studies (London) are now using FS Tree as a backup repository for their research.
When you start to address the question of where can I archive my research so that it not lost when I pass away, knowing that having it incorporated in the FS Tree can be a way to preserve your research.
Sure, others will now be able to change your data, but FST is designed so nothing is lost.
I have high hopes that over next 5-10-20 years the quality of the data in that tree will improve as serious researchers clean it up and document their assertions with source materials.
I have now taken the step in my default Family File setup always to integrate with Family Search. This does not mean that any of your data will automatically be downloaded to FS nor does it mean that any of the FS data is automatically upload to your Legacy tree.
What it means is that, if you open the Legacy Family Search module when pointing to person in your database, FS will try to find that person from your family file in the FS tree database. If it is successful, and you choose, you can link those people together so that the FamilySearch ID for the person is now in your record for the person.
Yes, you can also share your information with the FS tree and you can add information from FS to your family file, but those can be optional step under your control.
The debate should not be on the quality of the data but on whether or not FamilySearch is tool that can further my research. Personally, I am not going to dismiss a clue to further my research by ignoring what is in the FS tree.
john.
At 08:51 AM 11/28/2013, Ron Bernier wrote:
Ron,
The points that you are making are exactly why I will not link my database to FamilySearch.à Before someone on the list jumps down my throat and tells me I am being foolish, they need to carefully read the fact that I said I will not link my database to FamilySearch.à I will and do avail myself of the information on FS, but I manually search their database and manually enter any information that I deem is useful for my database.à I have no desire to sort through fifty people that FamilySearch's databaseà has determined are a match for the one person inà my database.
The FamilySearch database is already fraught with duplicate information, incorrect information, incomplete information.Ã These errors and duplications will grow exponentially as more and more folks decide to connect to FamilySearch and continue to perpetuate the duplications and errors.
Ron Bernier
Woonsocket, RI
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Ron Ferguson < [email protected]> wrote:
Mike,
That is pretty much what I am politely(?) trying to say.
The powers that be seem to think that there are sufficient controls in place to ensure their data is not corrupted. I am less than convinced.
Ron Ferguson
http://www.fergys.co.uk/
Mike Fry <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2013/11/28 01:19, Ron Ferguson wrote:
>
>> Whilst Family Search is based on user submitted data, with all the problems
>> that brings, we can now also amend that data, and with the best will in the
>> world I cannot but see how this is not going to worsen the quality of the
>> data.
>
>Don't you think that facilities like this, improperly used, will only add to the
>mess that was the IGI? After all, the FamilySearch database does include a lot
>of what was in the IGI.
>
>--
>Regards,
>Mike Fry
>Johannesburg (g)
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
Follow Legacy on Facebook ( http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog ( http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com).
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
Follow Legacy on Facebook ( http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog ( http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com).
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com).
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
