RootsChat.Com
General => Technical Help => Family History Programs, Tree Organisation, Presentation => Topic started by: Peter Sanders on Tuesday 29 November 16 09:32 GMT (UK)
-
Why hasn't all the information available been computerised and connected ... there is no reason why ALL family trees are not readily available ... it is illogical that everybody has to research their own ancestry when a simple computer program could correlate everything !?
-
I am so astounded by this post that I am lost for words.
Jebber
-
Are you volunteering to write said computer program?
-
How do you propose a "simple" computer program could logically combine all of the various digitalised / transcribed and not digitalised records across the world - combine all of that data taking into account the various spellings of names etc work out who the parents and siblings etc are to formulate a family tree.
Let alone the talk of money - have you got the money to fund the digitalisation of every record that is out there and store it as you are talking big big data and then fund a team of about 20 developers to start with to create the "simple" computer program you require.
Good luck with that!
-
It's not often that I'm lost for words, but in this case........
(by the way, you didn't respond to the many friendly replies you got here
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=760265.msg6111665#msg6111665 )
-
With you all the way, JenB, I was just composing a polite reply in the same vein....
Josey
-
it is illogical that everybody has to research their own ancestry when a simple computer program could correlate everything !?
LOLZ.
Would rather remove the whole fun of our hobby, don't you think?
-
I agree actually - there is nothing better than the satisfaction you get when you find something major in the tree or break down a brick wall you have been facing. There is also nothing like finding old letters or photographs of the family. If it was all done for you - no one would bother as it would be boring!
-
I suspect that new member "Peter Sanders" is just stirring.
Two very odd posts from a new member rings alarm bells for me. :)
-
I suspect that new member "Peter Sanders" is just stirring.
Two very odd posts from a new member rings alarm bells for me. :)
It makes you wonder doesn't it - like JenB .......also lost for words..........................
Sandra
-
Why hasn't all the information available been computerised and connected ... there is no reason why ALL family trees are not readily available ... it is illogical that everybody has to research their own ancestry when a simple computer program could correlate everything !?
For how many years have you been employed as a Computer Programmer, I wonder?
Which two census years would you analyse first?
-
It's hard to tell if this is a serious question or not, but here goes.
There are some "universal" trees online, like wikitree and others, but they are only as good as the information in them. Some of this information is good, some is the usual rubbish such as children born when their parents are 8 or 108.
As to why all the census, parish, probate, tax, legal, etc records aren't readily available. There are many millions of records in Britain, billions if one includes all of Europe and all English speaking countries. Transcribing, indexing and putting this information online requires an immense amount of work, millions of hours of it, some of it done by volunteers, some of it done by companies who charge for it.
Why hasn't this all been done? (Stamps foot impatiently.)
-
(Repeat of message above.) ???
-
Why hasn't all the information available been computerised and connected ... there is no reason why ALL family trees are not readily available ... it is illogical that everybody has to research their own ancestry when a simple computer program could correlate everything !?
Have you done a feasibility study?
-
To me it is very simple:
Computer programmes follow logic
Real life doesn't
E.g - Fred Bloggs appears on 1881 census as being born 1850 in Liverpool
Computer will "decide" he is the same person as a Fred Bloggs bn 1850 Liverpool on 1851 census with his parents John and Mary. Relying on "computer" you follow the lines back from John and Mary.
Real research reveals that the Fred Bloggs on 1851's dad died just after the census and Mary remarried quickly to Mr Jones whilst Fred was still a baby. Fred remembered no other father than Mr Jones, and was brought up with the surname Jones that he used for the rest of his life. So this Fred appears on the 1881 as Fred Jones.
However, the Fred on the 1881, is actually living in Cornwall in that census. He gave his pob as Liverpool as that was the nearest big town. He was actually born in a village in the Liverpool area and appears on all previous censuses , incl the 1851, with that village as his pob. His parents on 1851 are George and Ann.
So - if you are descended from the 1881 Fred, bn 1850 in Liverpool, and follow the computer, you will follow the wrong line entirely.
OK - fictitious scenarios. But I am sure all of us who have been researching for any length of time will identify with this sort of scenario. And know therefore that "computer" matching of data has severe limitations.
Therefore a "simple computer programme" could not correlate everything - even if every record WAS online and WAS correctly transcribed. A computer programme could not adapt for the human aspect, and lack of logic that real life displays.
Hope that has helped answer your question Peter.
-
Why hasn't all the information available been computerised and connected ... there is no reason why ALL family trees are not readily available ... it is illogical that everybody has to research their own ancestry when a simple computer program could correlate everything !?
Which town do you propose should be the Pilot for your Project?
-
I suspect that new member "Peter Sanders" is just stirring.
Two very odd posts from a new member rings alarm bells for me. :)
Perhaps he is a teenager doing A Levels, or at University studying Computers?
-
I suspect that new member "Peter Sanders" is just stirring.
Two very odd posts from a new member rings alarm bells for me. :)
Perhaps he is a teenager doing A Levels, or at University studying Computers?
Yep classic windup merchant ..... remember - dont feed the Troll :P
-
Let's not have a witch hunt. The OP could easily be new to the whole world of Family History and thus unaware of some of the problems.
I suggest leaving off the unpleasant comments and accusations and wait for Peter to come back.
-
Like he did on his other wind up posting ?
-
Quite agree Mike. New member only his second post I am sure he is just trying to find his feet on the our website as well as others that concern family history.
Sarah :)
-
I agree actually - there is nothing better than the satisfaction you get when you find something major in the tree or break down a brick wall you have been facing. There is also nothing like finding old letters or photographs of the family. If it was all done for you - no one would bother as it would be boring!
Absolutely. I am so glad that I began this all (even as a very late comer) some 12 years ago, back when places like Ancestry were sources of records - not of canned family trees.
Now, when I type in a family member's name in a census search, for instance, I am presented with a list of all the records on the site (including sites that Ancestry has gobbled up, like findagrave) relating to that person ... many of which are only identified by Ancestry because of the extensive corrections and additions I have made to its records. ;)
But it also points me to many unrelated records for people with similar details. (E.g.: a family in east London circa 1900 with the same unusual surname as mine, who managed to have half a dozen kids with the exact same names as my grandparent's siblings; the eldest sons, born the same year, with the same name, were both killed in WWI, etc.) Anybody who followed those trails would be sadly misled.
And then (I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I'm sure someone has mentioned it), what of all the idiot family trees? Like the one (actually, about 50 at Ancestry at any given time, and all over the web elsewhere) that has my Cornwall ancestors making a quick two-way trip across the Atlantic and having (and abandoning) a son in Tennessee in 1775... or the one with a distant Quaker rellie of mine in Pennsylvania whose grandson was 250 years older than him?
When it comes to other people's family trees,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify
but really: verify first. ;)
One other quick comment: not everybody wants their family tree accessible to the world and its dog. I don't.
And speaking of the world - does Ancestry still have that One World Tree thing? ;D
-
Why hasn't all the information available been computerised and connected ... there is no reason why ALL family trees are not readily available ... it is illogical that everybody has to research their own ancestry when a simple computer program could correlate everything !?
Surely the fun of it all is to do the research?
Frank.
-
You certainly need to be doggedly persistent, and be prepared for the inevitable. It is so much fun and full of surprises. Like old age, it's not for sissies.
-
Let's not have a witch hunt. The OP could easily be new to the whole world of Family History and thus unaware of some of the problems.
I suggest leaving off the unpleasant comments and accusations and wait for Peter to come back.
Come on...let's give the guy a chance..he is airing his views on what is freely available and what requires payment, and ...his frustration at not being able to freely access information is clear. I sympathise..as a newbie i felt the same, but we are at the mercy of commercial sites that on the face of it...appear to give free access but end up wanting to pick our pockets.
With hindsight and experience...we soon realise that genealogy is big business and there is only so much research that comes free.
That's why we do what we do...because we have been there.
Don't give up ;)
Carol
-
Why hasn't all the information available been computerised and connected ... there is no reason why ALL family trees are not readily available ... it is illogical that everybody has to research their own ancestry when a simple computer program could correlate everything !?
Actually that process has already been started, first by individual transcribers and groups of transcribers in the 19th century, later by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
In the past they made attempts with the IGI and their efforts to microfilm Parish Registers etc.
This was updated in the 80s and 90s when computers were more readily available with databases such as the 1881 Census, The British Isles Vital Records Index and many other similar data sets.
Since 2000 they have embraced online records on their familyserch.org site which includes Family Tree. This is their attempt to build a comprehensive family tree by compiling a dataset of family trees accessible from one central point.
Whether familysearch or Ancestry have a greater number of records available I would not like to say but no matter which has the most they both only hold a fraction of the total number of records available.
Such collections have taken many decades to compile and more are still being acquired, the cost so far runs to many millions of US Dollars.
In addition there are many other companies and even governments digitising records that are made publically available.
Companies such as Findmypast and the Genealogist have been making inroads into UK records as well.
If the truth be told it will be many decades yet until one could say with confidence that 50% of records have been digitised let alone all records.
Cheers
Guy
-
Why hasn't all the information available been computerised and connected ... there is no reason why ALL family trees are not readily available ... it is illogical that everybody has to research their own ancestry when a simple computer program could correlate everything !?
Welcome to ROOTSCHAT!!!
I find this an odd question to be honest.
This is just as the heading says...a ROOTSCHAT Forum where people ask questions & people help with replies.
There are no family trees on here as it's a Genealogy CHAT site as well as other topics.
Some people do their own family trees for their own benefit & don't want/need to have it online for anyone else.
Those people have spent a lot of money on genuine certificates which other people seem reluctant to do i.e. why should other's pay for the benefit of people who don't/won't pay ???
Annie
-
And on Guy's point, a tip of the hat to him: over a decade ago, he had transcribed Long Clawson marriages and made them available on line, in a list form. When I was just starting out myself, that is how I discovered - I assume through the magic of google - who my greatx3 grandparents were. ;)
That grx3 grandmother and her several siblings were the last to carry a surname now extinct in England (her two brothers died unmarried/childless) and they all appeared on Guy's list of marriages -- and my grx3 grandfather managed to marry two of them! Well, he didn't actually marry my grx3 grandmother, tsk -- him being one of the most respectable burghers in my otherwise ag lab-y / framework knitter-y tree ... it was illegal for a man to marry his deceased wife's sister at the time. They just pretended to be married. So Guy's list alerted me to that little fact, by showing both his and her previous marriages. ;)
-
And on Guy's point, a tip of the hat to him: over a decade ago, he had transcribed Long Clawson marriages and made them available on line, in a list form. When I was just starting out myself, that is how I discovered - I assume through the magic of google - who my greatx3 grandparents were. ;)
snip
Blushing now, just glad I could help in some way.
Cheers
Guy
-
I think it's a missed opportunity that you can't link everybody up, at least back to 1837.
If you were setting up a BMD registration system, I don't see why you wouldn't want to link the B, M and D of each individual. All it needed was a Unique ID...
-
I think it's a missed opportunity that you can't link everybody up, at least back to 1837.
If you were setting up a BMD registration system, I don't see why you wouldn't want to link the B, M and D of each individual. All it needed was a Unique ID...
One word Privacy.
-
When Civil Registration started in England & Wales, way back in 1837, there were no computers, not even typewriters! ;D
How would anyone ensure that a "uniqueID" issued in Penzance was different from a "uniqueID" issued in Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, for example.
In days when people didn't even remember where or when they were born, hoe could it be managed to use these self-same "unique ID's" on their marriage registration?
And then, when they died, who was going to remember the "unique ID" - when they often got the age wrong anyway?
It was a human system, subject to all the vagaries of human memory.
-
Bit defeatist, KG.
If you're issuing birth certs, it shouldn't be too difficult to add a unique reference number. Make it a rule for brides and grooms to present their birth certs at their wedding and at the registration of their subsequent children and you've got the beginnings of a workable system
-
Can a computer algorithm work out who's related to who? Well, Ancestry hints have attempted this, and have hardly succeeded. ;D
-
But you can't apply it retrospectively throughout the past 179 years?! :-\
Those of us who have been doing genealogical research for some time have many, many cases where people just didn't remember basic facts about their lives.
People forget where they were born, even when they were born.
How would you expect the many illiterate people (especially in the early to mid 1800s) to remember an ID that means nothing to them?
You can't turn back history! ::)
-
Bit defeatist, KG.
If you're issuing birth certs, it shouldn't be too difficult to add a unique reference number. Make it a rule for brides and grooms to present their birth certs at their wedding and at the registration of their subsequent children and you've got the beginnings of a workable system
Because at some date in the last thirty years or so in England they did come up with the idea of issuing NHS numbers at the same time as birth registration, as we discussed recently.
-
Hi
First of all as a newcomer to Rootschat and genealogy I would like to thank everyone on Rootschat who give their time and expertise to help other members. By following different threads I have picked up ideas on where to look. General threads about such as reading old handwriting have reminded me not to be so critical of the poor transcribers when they make errors.
I have however often been frustrated I have found on the Internet a possible match for an ancestor and when I try to open it I am asked for payment. But even more frustrated when I do put a little information online and end up with an obviously suspect tree offered as part of my family - such as a birth in Adelaide Australia when the father on my tree was born and died in England. Followed by a phone call from the website offering me a special deal!
On ID numbers I already have lots of ID's in Australia and UK - eg National Insurance, Tax File, Medicare, Driver licences and Passports - none of which I can remember and probably neither will the person who reports my death - maybe a barcode tattooed on my arm or a chip like cats have here in Australia.
I have found it all a little confusing when I started but that is because it is all new to me.
Again thanks for all your help
Jan
-
Computer programmes follow logic
Real life doesn't
Love it.....says it all...no logic in the original question.
Annie
-
But you can't apply it retrospectively throughout the past 179 years?! :-\
You can't turn back history! ::)
I agree, which is why I said it was an opportunity missed
-
But you can't apply it retrospectively throughout the past 179 years?! :-\
You can't turn back history! ::)
I agree, which is why I said it was an opportunity missed
It would be simpler if someone would just invent a time machine. That way we could go back and interview our ancestors and return to enjoy the miracles of television and indoor plumbing. We could also solve the great mysteries of history. Who killed the Princes in the Tower? Who killed Cock Robin?
-
Who killed Cock Robin?
I believe that's been solved
Who killed Cock Robin?
I, said the Sparrow,
with my bow and arrow,
I killed Cock Robin.
https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/tommy-thumbs-pretty-song-book
-
Who killed Cock Robin?
I believe that's been solved
Who killed Cock Robin?
I, said the Sparrow,
with my bow and arrow,
I killed Cock Robin.
https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/tommy-thumbs-pretty-song-book
The sparrow has since revoked his confession, saying he was forced to sign it and there is now a public enquiry in to the miscarraige of justice. :)
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Is my use of a Tablet PC the reason this website doesn't do anything correctly ? I joined rootsChat because a relative tried to contact me via Ancestry.com (which won't pass along any details without payment) so I ran a search on her name and discovered she's a member of rootsChat. After becoming a member I wasted an hour before learning I couldn't send a message before I'd started 3 topics of conversation (?!). After 2 days (only allowed one post per day) I found that I couldn't respond to any of the comments I recieved (I would have loved to reply to the time waster who simply commented "Who killed cock robin"!). The website is a pain to use since whoever designed it had obviously never heard of a touchscreen ... 'click' items too small for a finger etc etc. One commenter said that if ones family tree could simply be referenced by a computer program it would remove the pleasure of their "hobby" ... does anyone know of an up to date website that can be used by intelligent people ? i.e. not rootChat aka pointlessChatter.
-
I think that you have mis-interpreted some of the "rules" You should have been able to reply to other peoples threads to get to the three posts.
Did you try to post?
-
As you come across as such a nice person, if you tell us the rootschat name of the person you are trying to contact I'm sure you will get many people willing to attempt to contact her on your behalf as you seem to be struggling to understand how to use it.
I say 'attempt' because many people join rootschat but are not active members - so it depends how long ago she was ''active" and if she still has the same email address, as to whether she is contactable.
If you wish to contact her yourself you can click on her name and follow the prompts to send her a Personal Message. I'm sure she will be thrilled to hear from you.
It's always nice to get such lovely comments from a new member.
-
Hi Peter,
I think being a new member you have got things wrong. Your frustration with Ancestry is not helping with your patience of learning something new we are all here trying to help you.
You mistakenly clicked on the wrong button and I replied instantly with help and assistance.
You can reply/post as many times as you want.
Once registered you can reply to almost any topic, you first could have been to say simply "hello" to the person you are trying to contact on the thread that you found concerning shared family - this is usually what happens. When you reply to a topic the member will be notified of your reply. If you reply to a topic and there is a problem I am able to investigate and notify the poster but I only do this for posts on the website and not PM's.
Sarah
-
After 2 days (only allowed one post per day) I found that I couldn't respond to any of the comments I recieved
You are allowed more than 1 post per day so not sure where you have picked that up from
The website is a pain to use since whoever designed it had obviously never heard of a touchscreen ... 'click' items too small for a finger etc etc.
The forum software was developed before using Tablets & mobiles became a rage - I do however use this on my mobile and I have extremely chubby fingers and has never been much of an issue to navigate for me.
does anyone know of an up to date website that can be used by intelligent people ?
I don't quite understand why you think that this website is not used by intelligent people... Surely you are the only one facing the issue here...
-
Sarah, You are too nice. :-*
-
I use the site every day on both a tablet and iphone with no problem 😀
-
After 2 days (only allowed one post per day) I found that I couldn't respond to any of the comments I recieved (I would have loved to reply to the time waster who simply commented "Who killed cock robin"!).
It's a good job that your information is so wrong?!
I have made 18,488 posts (so far).
At 1 per day that would have taken me over 50 years?! ???
And it shouldn't need much in the way of intelligence to work that out ;D
-
But you can't apply it retrospectively throughout the past 179 years?! :-\
Those of us who have been doing genealogical research for some time have many, many cases where people just didn't remember basic facts about their lives.
People forget where they were born, even when they were born.
How would you expect the many illiterate people (especially in the early to mid 1800s) to remember an ID that means nothing to them?
You can't turn back history! ::)
It would be difficult but not impossible to apply it retrospectively, but if the Labour Government of 2002 had not made such a mess of the proposed legislation laid out in the White Paper – Civil Registration : Delivering Vital Change we would today have a though life record for everyone born since then and possibly many people born before then as well.
As was stated by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Third Report in the House of Lords-
“Through life records
10. The present system of civil registration is described in the Statement as holding "snapshots" of life events.[43] Article 11(2) would allow the Registrar General or a registration authority to annotate any entry in a register to record that the individual concerned is the subject of another entry in the register. By this means it is proposed that through life records would be maintained. The through life record is envisaged as a series of links connecting various life events of an individual registered in England or Wales. This information would not be publicly available, but open only to the subject of the record, his or her family and representatives, those who are granted access, and certain public authorities specified in Schedule 12 to the draft order (article 45). “
Cheers
Guy
-
Didn't they have something like this on a "Yes Minister episode" and everyone tried to pass it on to another department. Yes Minister so often predicted the future.
Jan
-
I agree that this forum is a bit annoying to use on a touchscreen phone. But disagree with the comment about intelligent people. >:(
-
Didn't they have something like this on a "Yes Minister episode" and everyone tried to pass it on to another department. Yes Minister so often predicted the future.
Jan
driving licence numbers incorporate your date of birth albeit coded
I feel sure that several government departments are considering how to cross reference all our identifying numbers, possibly as fraud prevention measures
-
Is my use of a Tablet PC the reason this website doesn't do anything correctly ? I joined rootsChat because a relative tried to contact me via Ancestry.com (which won't pass along any details without payment) so I ran a search on her name and discovered she's a member of rootsChat. After becoming a member I wasted an hour before learning I couldn't send a message before I'd started 3 topics of conversation (?!). After 2 days (only allowed one post per day) I found that I couldn't respond to any of the comments I recieved (I would have loved to reply to the time waster who simply commented "Who killed cock robin"!). The website is a pain to use since whoever designed it had obviously never heard of a touchscreen ... 'click' items too small for a finger etc etc. One commenter said that if ones family tree could simply be referenced by a computer program it would remove the pleasure of their "hobby" ... does anyone know of an up to date website that can be used by intelligent people ? i.e. not rootChat aka pointlessChatter.
QED !
-
Bit defeatist, KG.
Hmmm? Pot calling the kettle black, I think?!
-
Bit defeatist, KG.
Hmmm? Pot calling the kettle black, I think?!
.
Perhaps time to call it time on this thread, don't you think?
-
I joined this week. Still finding my way around. I'm a novice at this kind of thing and with IT in general. So far I've found plenty to interest me. And it's free! Don't look a gift-horse in the mouth. ;D
-
QED !
Agreed! I'm often wrong, but rarely so comprehensively and spectacularly.
-
Quick comment on the concept of a centralised family history record system. I am against. Such a monster would require a team of administrators and a procedure to determine what goes on the monster tree and what is excluded. The monster will have the stronger narrative over individual research and that narrative may have many errors. Recently I had information taken from one of my websites by someone who posted it on a centralised burial site called Find a Grave and made a right mess of it creating lots of errors. These Find a Grave records come up as hints on Ancestry so you can imagine how strange it was to see my own information come back to me in a garbled state ::)
Blue