From: G6JPG-255@255soft.uk   
      
   In message , Steve Hayes   
    writes:   
   >On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 10:31:20 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>In message , Steve Hayes   
   >> writes:   
   []   
   >>>FamilySearch database.   
   >>   
   >>I think that's the main disadvantage with it (also see below) - that you   
   >>have to access it via special means. Plus I'm not sure how much facility   
   >>it has to add what some might consider material of only marginal   
   >>genealogical relevance (stories, pictures, and video), though as I   
   >>haven't really tried it I shouldn't say that.   
   >   
   >You can access it using a web browser, but the disadvantage is that   
   >you would forego the easse of exchanging information -- you would   
   >either have to copy and paste line by line, or retype stuff.   
      
   Ah, I see.   
   []   
   >>That, I guess, is my main other disadvantage to it: it's the question of   
   >>who has ultimate control. And that's intractable, and not a _criticism_   
   >>of the "one universal tree" _idea_. Anyone who _does_ keep their own   
   >>personal database (except where they're just keeping it for convenient   
   >>access for when and where they have no internet connection) shares this   
   >>concern.   
   >   
   >I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but surely the concern is   
   >the same with two workers on the same database as on a universal tree.   
      
   Indeed.   
   []   
   >>>For example I recently discovered that someone had changed a baptism   
   []   
   >>>I changed it back (restored the original, which had been inserted by   
   []   
   >>>Any time you have a multiuser database you will have such problems,   
   >>>but I think the way FamilySearch deals with them is pretty good -- by   
   >>>encouraging discussion of the problems and the interpretation of the   
   >>>data, and keeping track of who changed what and when.   
   >>>   
   >>Even before you got to "didn't have much clue", I was thinking, this   
   >>could get nasty. Do such comments about other contributors eventually   
   >>get removed in time? Even if they do, it implies some arbitrator, with   
   >>whose decisions themselves you may not agree. But again - whether they   
   []   
   >I've never seen anything like that, so I'll have to cross that bridge   
   >when I come to it. "FamilySearch Data Admin" does seem to have some   
   >kind of moderating function. They have, for example, seeded the   
   >database with people from records they've microfilmed and subsequently   
   >digitised, but I've never  seen any comments from them on what others   
   >have said.   
      
   This "seeding" sounds interesting! I really must have a look at this One   
   Tree sometime. It's finding the time! I've been struggling to catch up   
   with my backlog of genealogical emails, from cousins and from Ancestry -   
   it was over two years at one point, but I've got down to just over a   
   month; trouble is, as your tree grows, the number of hints Ancestry send   
   you also grows ...   
   []   
   >>I must look into how easy it is to both access, and contribute (e. g.   
   >>upload a GeDCom) to, this One Tree.   
   >   
   >You can't upload a Gedcom, precisely because it is one tree. You can   
   >only contribute person by person, datum by datum. That is precisely   
   >*because* it is one tree, and a Gedcom might cause lots of duplicates.   
      
   Hmm. I sort of see your reasoning, but I'd have thought some sort of   
   extension of the below _might_ have been possible. I'd like to   
   contribute, but the thought of doing that for all my 3xxx people ... do   
   _you_ keep your own private tree on your computer, and just contribute   
   the odd one? If so, how do you decide which ones to contribute?   
   >   
   >When you try to add a person, it brings up a list of possible   
   >duplicates. If you're not sure that any of them match, it lets you   
   >hadd the person anyway, and you may find that there are dup-licates   
   >that you can then merge.   
   >   
   Do you mean it lets you merge duplicates in the One Tree? That sounds   
   potentially very useful to all users, but also dangerous, in that it's a   
   lot harder (IME) to separate out where an apparently-duplicate has been   
   merged but turns out to be two people after all. (Or, probably more   
   common, where what was thought to be one person actually is two, without   
   a conscious merging having been done.)   
   >   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   31.69 nHz = once a year. (Julian Thomas)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)